Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry (AP Photo/Alonzo Adams)
Related Articles
Oklahoma's governor has vetoed the state's Firearms Freedom Act, an essentially Tenth Amendment-based bill declaring that any firearms made and retained in-state are outside the regulatory authority of Congress.
What were his reasons?
From the Claremore Daily Progress:
Gov. Brad Henry on Tuesday vetoed a bill to exempt Oklahoma-made guns and ammunition from federal regulations, saying the measure would make it easier for criminals to obtain weapons and endanger citizens and law enforcement.
..."I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and have earned an 'A' rating from the NRA, but this legislation does nothing to protect an individual's right to bear arms," Henry, a Democrat, said in a statement. "It abolishes commonsense regulations like background checks and gives criminals easy access to a wide array of weapons. This law would harm Oklahomans, not protect them."
The bill's author, State Senator Randy Brogdon, called these claims "absurd." From his Oklahoma State Senate press release:
“Oklahoma law addresses this issue—convicted felons cannot own guns in our state. The Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act would not have changed that state law...What the governor fails to grasp is that for years, anti-Second Amendment politicians have been attempting to use federal regulation as a way to prevent any law abiding citizen from owning firearms,” Brogdon said. “My legislation would have stopped further federal attempts to erode our Constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families.”
The measure was passed by a wide margin with bipartisan support, so Brogdon has promised he will attempt a veto override.
We've discussed the FFAs numerous times here at Gun Rights Examiner, noting that not all in the "pro gun" community support the measures due to concerns over legal strategies. We've also noted NRA is not behind the measures, going so far as to warn gun owners they will not help anyone who becomes legally embroiled in a fight against the feds.
While it's clear the Association would prefer to remain above the fray, they can't. It's a huge issue, having passed in seven states so far, and with legislation introduced in 20 others. Besides, their guy brought them up for cover.
So whether you're for or against the FFA strategy, gun owners deserve to know just how much distance the "800 Lb. gorilla" of the gun rights movement intends to keep. Specifically, Brad Henry is claiming an "A" rating, yet he gives a string of buzzword-seeded excuses that sounds like it was scripted by the Brady Campaign.
Can we assume, NRA, that, as with other Democrats you grade highly and endorse—who then vote along party lines to support anti-gun candidates and nominees—a vote against the Firearms Freedom Acts will not affect your political ratings for a candidate, and that you'll continue endorsing them, and urging your members to support them?
Yes or no?
Those going forward with this effort deserve to know.
Also see: Firearms Freedom Acts website
------------
Toy Story
Host James B. Towle and I will be discussing the latest development in the ATF Airsoft seizure today on Trigger Sports LIVE!
Join us at Noon PST by clicking here.
Comments
hah, wow, in oklahoma? i guess that's the end of his career.
The BATFEces have threatened other states with violent enforcement of their edicts (read: "war") after they passed similar legislation. Could it be that the Governor saw that coming to his state? After all, the Tenth Amendment means nothing to the BATFEces, same as the Second.
I just can't wait until the court case is lost. Which state will be the first to have the courage to add some enforcement provisions to their FFA. Montana? Wyoming?
This is his final term so he can show his proverbial ass, and he has. He has done nothing but postpone the pro-life, pro freedom bills with this veto.
They will pass and I dearly hope on an over ride of his veto. I hope for this so that he is forced to oblige the will of the oklahoma people.
It makes one wonder if he is looking for a better position with the current regime since he did support it.
I believe if you check with New Hampshire and you will find they have teeth in their law from what I was told. Up to two years in state prison for a federal BATF agent who attempts to arrest someone for manufacturing a gun under this act. Oklahoma needs to over ride this veto by a large majority and go on record as a leader in this fight. People are taking back control of their lives and the government is fighting it. Instead of being your masters they will once again become the servants they were intended to be. They will not give up power easily as evidenced by IRS buying up streetsweeper shotguns for their agents rather than relying on local police for back up as prescribed in regulations based on law. This will come down to a stand off and who blinks first.
The governor is a stupid little "man".
even in quotes "man" was overly generous, Kent.
Wish Oklahoma success in overriding the Governesses veto. The few States that have such laws will be the only ones producing guns and ammo if and when a World Court or International Treaty makes private gun ownership illegal in the US.
I am glad that Gov. Henry vetoed this bill. There are hundreds of thousands of felonx who have tried to buy firearms and have been stopped by federal law and regulations. More should have been prosecuted, I agree, but criminals do for a fact try to buy guns at gun stores. We need to close the loophole of felons buy guns at gun shows.
Robert, if you think background checks actually STOP dangerous people from buying guns, I have some oceanfront property in Okalahoma I would like to sell you...
The only thing background checks accomplish is to allow the seller to know they are not selling directly to whoever the government feels should be a "prohibited person" at the time. No gun control has ever been proven to prevent criminals from buying guns through straw purchasers, or on the street. Just because they're prevented from buying from a failed background check will not stop someone intent on disobeying the law.
Says Robert (Robert April 29, 11:10 AM--not Robert April 28, 3:31 PM): "There are hundreds of thousands of felonx [sic] who have tried to buy firearms and have been stopped by federal law and regulations."
"Hundreds of thousands," Robert? That's a lot of "felonx." Or, then again, you could be on a lot of "drugx."
Guess which explanation makes more sense to me.
Says Robert (April 28, 3:31 PM): "I believe if you check with New Hampshire and you will find they have teeth in their law from what I was told."
Such a law was proposed in New Hampshire, Robert, but New Hampshire House Bill 1285 doesn't seem to be going anywhere, unfortunately.
www.bit.ly/9tshXE
Robert, why would you thin that Oklahoma (and other states) won't use the background checks available, or set up their own system of background checks? And, as said before, the crooks get around background checks one way or another.
This is really an effort to tell the Federal Government that it has no say at the state level about who can buy guns, by avoiding the Interstate Commerce Clause, which the Feds have corrupted from its original purpose, like everything else they touch.
The Feds have responded to Montana and Tennessee with threats that the BATFEces will enforce their rules, at the point of a gun if necessary (ironic, no?), whether or not the states tell them to bugger off. That's pretty much a declaration of war in my book.
Tell me, Robert, if the Feds are going to enforce their rules over states that have more lax rules, why will they not strike down the state rules that are more draconian than the Fed's rule?
Have you thought about the thousands of different tools and substances that "might" be used to harm another human being? Ever wonder why there are no "background checks" or "licenses" for most of them?
Ever think just why guns (and related tools), but not matches (arson) or screwdrivers (2nd only to knives as murder weapons) are so "regulated" and cause so many of our elites to wax hysterical (like Bloomgerg)? Why are they willing to kill people over "registration" of guns, but not kitchen knives or cigarette lighters - both of which are handy tools in the hands of criminals.
Do you suppose it is exactly because guns are the single most effective tool, in the hands of ordinary people, to resist tyranny and genocide perpetrated by those very same elites?
Robert, quit being a child. Liberty carries certain risks. As risky as it can be for the occurence of the odd atrocity, it is better than complete absence of risk. Why? Because to have complete absence of risk means one is a slave and rather than the risk of the odd atrocity the inevitability of universal atrocity takes its place.
Grow up, Robert.
An NRA "A" rating is a license to kill the second amendment.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!