State No. 6 Tells Feds to Stuff Their Gun Regulations

[MaineCWPtraining]

Arizona declares weapons exempt from national firearms paperwork

A sixth state – Arizona – now has declared that guns made and kept inside its borders essentially are free from federal application, registration and ownership regulations in a surging movement among states that one supporter describes as a direct challenge to "a government monopoly on the supply of firearms."

Gov. Jan Brewer this week signed the state's version of a "Firearms Freedom Act," which originated in Montana and now has been adopted by six states, with several dozen more in various stages of their own plans.

Brewer issued a statement that the law is intended to give Washington the message that they should not try to "get between Arizonans and their constitutional rights."

READ MORE

 

[Chrisg67]

this is great news, but depressing to know if there was only one state to not do this...it would be mass

 

[JustEric]

You got my hopes up...with MA being the 6th state to ratify the Constitution

 

[FiremanBob]

I suppose that due to its small size and population, a similar law in Rhode Island wouldn't do much good.

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

States exempting guns from rules now total 7
Idaho governor signs law based on 9th, 10th amendments

Joining a nationwide effort to challenge Washington's authority, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter today made his state the seventh to exempt guns made and kept in the state from any federal regulations.

House Bill 589 was listed today on Otter's website among legislation that had been signed into law. The governor added Idaho to the list of states that have adopted what has become known as "Firearm Freedom Acts."

The movement began in Montana, where a court case was filed seeking affirmation that the state – and not bureaucrats in the nation's capital – has the right to manage in-state issues and actions.

Idaho's legislation cites the Second, Ninth and 10th Amendments as justification for its exemption, as well as the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

"The Tenth Amendment … guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Idaho certain powers as they were understood at the time that Idaho was admitted to statehood in 1890," the law says.

The Ninth Amendment also provides the state authority for its own rules for guns made and kept in the state, and the Second Amendment "reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Idaho as admitted to statehood," it states.

The focal point of the new law is a "Prohibition of Federal Regulation of Certain Firearms."

According to the Firearms Freedom Act website, such laws are "primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the 'commerce clause,' with firearms as the object – it is a state's rights exercise."

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association has been called the godfather of the movement for his work on the original plan that took effect last year in Montana.

Since then, Tennessee, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah and Arizona joined in the effort before today's result in Idaho. Marbut told WND today that officials are reporting that at least another 24 states are considering similar legislation.

READ MORE

 

[Coyote33]

Yeah, but so far isn't this all just a bunch of talk?

Also, this is in addition to how many states again which are suing the federal government over the new health care bill?

 

[drgrant]

Yeah, but so far isn't this all just a bunch of talk?

Also, this is in addition to how many states again which are suing the federal government over the new health care bill?

It is all talk but it is important talk- it's a signal that states are starting to get pissed off at over-reaching power of the federal government.

-Mike

 

[mikem317]

Yeah, I'd like to see more "walk" and less "talk". I wish I had the gonads to start "Montana Firearms Holding Group" or some other clever name, and start churning out some de-lux firearms w/o any 4473 BS.

 

[Kevlar]

Yeah, but so far isn't this all just a bunch of talk?

As drgrant said, it is a symbolic gesture, but an important one.

Also, this is in addition to how many states again which are suing the federal government over the new health care bill?

Apples and oranges. They have standing, and are challenging the constitutionality of the health care bill.

 

[Coyote33]

Yeah, I'd like to see more "walk" and less "talk". I wish I had the gonads to start "Montana Firearms Holding Group" or some other clever name, and start churning out some de-lux firearms w/o any 4473 BS.

http://www.cooperfirearms.com/our_rifles_new.php

 

[GSG]

I suppose that due to its small size and population, a similar law in Rhode Island wouldn't do much good.

Every little bit helps.

It is all talk but it is important talk- it's a signal that states are starting to get pissed off at over-reaching power of the federal government.

Yup. The only thing that concerns me is how hard the Feds will push back. I'm willing to bet that most gun manufacturers haven't stepped out to support these states out of fear of the ATF.

 

[drgrant]

http://www.cooperfirearms.com/our_rifles_new.php

Doesn't count. They have an FFL, a manufacturing license, and probably pay taxes to the ATF, like most gun manufs do in the US.

In order to even think about "testing" the commerce clause implications, the manuf would have to be unlicensed federally, and build the gun ground up in the state in question.

-Mike

 

[Zappa]

You got my hopes up...with MA being the 6th state to ratify the Constitution

I always thought it was odd that Mass is so anti-gun, and at the same time, one of the largest gun manufacturing states.

 

[cekim]

I always thought it was odd that Mass is so anti-gun, and at the same time, one of the largest gun manufacturing states.

Perhaps the pinnacle of the socialist education program that this location has so completely erased the memory and meaning of the events that shaped it into the historical place that it is.

 

[GSG]

Perhaps the pinnacle of the socialist education program that this location has so completely erased the memory and meaning of the events that shaped it into the historical place that it is.

Seems much more like legislative oversight to me.

 

[Coyote33]

Doesn't count. They have an FFL, a manufacturing license, and probably pay taxes to the ATF, like most gun manufs do in the US.

In order to even think about "testing" the commerce clause implications, the manuf would have to be unlicensed federally, and build the gun ground up in the state in question.

-Mike

I thought they could just keep doing what they do, and then just drop off the necessity to follow any federal laws as long as their commerce stays in state.

 

[Coyote33]

Perhaps the pinnacle of the socialist education program that this location has so completely erased the memory and meaning of the events that shaped it into the historical place that it is.

NE manufacturers & "gun valley"

 

[sig2009]

this is great news, but depressing to know if there was only one state to not do this...it would be mass

Folks. When are you all going to realize that Federal Law trumps State Law!!!!!!! These stae laws will not hold up in court.

 

[Lamina]

Folks. When are you all going to realize that Federal Law trumps State Law!!!!!!! These stae laws will not hold up in court.

BZZZZZZZ. Wrong.

For half credit, what formed the federal government, and what was the exact wording of the 10th amendment?

 

[NHAtHeart]

BZZZZZZZ. Wrong.

For half credit, what formed the federal government, and what was the exact wording of the 10th amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I cheated and grabbed my pocket Constitution.

Folks. When are you all going to realize that Federal Law trumps State Law!!!!!!! These stae laws will not hold up in court.

The Federal Government only has control over interstate commerce, if you generate a product that is forbidden to leave the state, it is not within the power of the Federal Government to control the sale of the product.

 

[cekim]

The Federal Government only has control over interstate commerce, if you generate a product that is forbidden to leave the state, it is not within the power of the Federal Government to control the sale of the product.

True but:
a. The Courts have for a very long time taken an extraordinarily liberal view of "interstate commerce" - this is one of their chief failings of their duty to protect the Constitution.

b. The states have NO power to declare Federal law invalid or not applicable to the states. Only the courts interpreting constitution and Federal law have the power (which ultimately rests with the Supreme Court) to say if a state law is saved or pre-empted based on legislative wording, intent, interstate commerce, etc...

As always, IANAL, but so far as I understand from those who are:
A state saying "this law does not apply to citizens of this state" is a symbolic gesture with no force of law UNLESS the Federal law had a "savings clause" of some sort which explicitly said that the Federal law shall not preempt state law IF the state so says so...

The Feds _can_ write a law that says "our law trumps unless the state says otherwise" but I do not believe the laws governing the ATF have any such caveat.

The states can challenge the existing law in court if they so choose (and should), as unconstitutional, but writing the law at the state level has no legal force, except perhaps to force the state AG to resolve the constitutional question that it creates by suing the Federal Government.

Sorry to say that state's rights were KIA in the Civil War... We used explosives to solve slavery instead of a scalpel and we have been paying the price ever since.

 

[NHAtHeart]

True but:
a. The Courts have for a very long time taken an extraordinarily liberal view of "interstate commerce" - this is one of their chief failings of their duty to protect the Constitution.

b. The states have NO power to declare Federal law invalid or not applicable to the states. Only the courts interpreting constitution and Federal law have the power (which ultimately rests with the Supreme Court) to say if a state law is saved or pre-empted based on legislative wording, intent, interstate commerce, etc...

As always, IANAL, but so far as I understand from those who are:
A state saying "this law does not apply to citizens of this state" is a symbolic gesture with no force of law UNLESS the Federal law had a "savings clause" of some sort which explicitly said that the Federal law shall not preempt state law IF the state so says so...

The Feds _can_ write a law that says "our law trumps unless the state says otherwise" but I do not believe the laws governing the ATF have any such caveat.

The states can challenge the existing law in court if they so choose (and should), as unconstitutional, but writing the law at the state level has no legal force, except perhaps to force the state AG to resolve the constitutional question that it creates by suing the Federal Government.

Sorry to say that state's rights were KIA in the Civil War... We used explosives to solve slavery instead of a scalpel and we have been paying the price ever since.

I agree completely and believe the states are trying to set the groundwork for a challenge to some of the laws based on constitutional grounds. Wasn't the precedent for this based on the California Pot law where the SCOTUS said "you can't prove it's made in Cali so therefore it still applies" which people are interpreting to mean "If you can prove it was made in the state the Feds have to STFU"?

I don't doubt this will end up in legal battles eventually once people decide to start testing the water. It seems as though as long as the States can prove it is in no way shape or form interstate commerce they stand a chance of telling the Feds to get out of their business.

 

[sig2009]

BZZZZZZZ. Wrong.

For half credit, what formed the federal government, and what was the exact wording of the 10th amendment?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. This government does not follow the constitution.

 

[Lamina]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. This government does not follow the constitution.

Ding! we have a winner. But that does not mean "federal law trumps state law". Just that the feds ain't real good at following their laws.

 

[GSG]

I thought they could just keep doing what they do, and then just drop off the necessity to follow any federal laws as long as their commerce stays in state.

This is what I thought too. Can someone clarify this?

Folks. When are you all going to realize that Federal Law trumps State Law!!!!!!! These stae laws will not hold up in court.

Maybe. See what I'm posting below.

The Federal Government only has control over interstate commerce, if you generate a product that is forbidden to leave the state, it is not within the power of the Federal Government to control the sale of the product.

Remember the Hells Angel who got charged recently in Worcester?

After initially denying it, Mr. Sinkis admitted to shooting a 9 mm Smith & Wesson pistol Oct. 28 at the gun range with his girlfriend and another woman, Judge Hillman said. Because the Smith & Wesson was manufactured in Massachusetts, while the ammunition was not, and proof of the weapon crossing state lines is a requirement for a federal weapons charge, Mr. Sinkis is charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition, but not in possession of a firearm.

It's also mentioned again in this thread.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php/29428-Hells-Angels

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

STATE CONSTITUTIONS HAVE PREVAILED LIKE MAINE'S ARTICLE I SECTION 16

 

[theGringo]

Seditious. Delicious. Me likey.

 

[Coyote33]

Seditious. Delicious. Me likey.

Hey, didn't Governor Patrick use that word just recently?

 

[theGringo]

Delicious? Musta missed it!

 

[KMaurer]

The Federal Government only has control over interstate commerce, if you generate a product that is forbidden to leave the state, it is not within the power of the Federal Government to control the sale of the product.

Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court disagrees with your [and my] reading of the Constitution. In 1942 the Court handed down a decision that makes every other decision by the "progressive" wing seem tame by comparison. It seems that a farmer grew more wheat than he was allowed under the New Deal farm price controls, but never sold it or shipped it off his property, using it for his and his family's needs. The Court ruled that the federal government still had the authority to regulate this activity, since he might have purchased wheat in interstate commerce had he not grown his own. Under this "reasoning", buying a gun manufactured in Massachusetts and keeping it never taking it out of state could still be regulated, since, if you didn't have that gun you might have bought one made in another state. The reason that the charge against the Hell's Angel was thrown out was because the law passed by Congress explicitly refers to firearms that have moved in interstate commerce, not because of any Constitutional argument.

Ken