George Mason was a leading proponent of state
sovereignty (public domain image)
Related Articles
-
Medical marijuana and guns: The Obama administration's split personality on state sovereignty
-
The Brady Campaign against state sovereignty
-
Missouri to introduce Firearms Freedom Act
-
New Hampshire proposes state sovereignty law--with a twist
-
Firearms Freedom Act promises something politicians are not able to deliver
-
MSSA response, Quit being a wet blanket on the flames of liberty
It has been a while since we've talked about states enacting some variation of the Firearms Freedom Act. This legislation would declare that firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories manufactured in-state, and not moved across state lines, are not subject to federal law. The reasoning behind this is that federal authority for all such regulation stems from the Constitution's "interstate commerce clause." Someting that doesn't leave the state isn't part of interstate commerce.
Montana and Tennessee got the ball rolling, passing their versions of the bill last spring and summer, respectively. The BATFE has warned both states of its intention to ignore (i.e. violate) these state laws. This batte will be fought in federal court. The states face, admittedly, an uphill battle there, because the courts have established a record of ruling that virtually everything "affects interstate commerce.
Last December, I wrote of Missouri's entry into the fray, with the introduction of HB 1230 (note: the Missouri legislature's website is down for the weekend for maintenance but is expected to be back online Monday). Missouri's HB 1506 (again, the website is down at the moment) is similar, if not identical, to HB 1230. As of yet, very little action seems to have taken place with either bill.
Utah's Governor Gary Herbert signed Utah SB 11, the "Utah State-Made Firearms Protection Act," on February 26th. Wyoming's Firearms Freedom Act passed with overwhelming, veto-proof majorities in both houses (the governor is expected to sign it). Wyoming's version features a provision I admired in New Hampshire's version of the legislation (which has enjoyed little progress, to date)--it criminalizes federal enforcement of laws invalidated by the state legislation:
Wyoming's Firearms Freedom Act, though, is harsher than those laws, as it states that any state or federal official who tries to enforce any federal gun law on a firearms made and sold in Wyoming could face a $2,000 fine and up to a year in prison.
FInally, just this past week, the South Dakota legislature has passed its own version, which the governor is expected to sign. In other words, then, we are two governors' signatures away (expected signatures) from having the legislation in five states. Dozens of others have either introduced it, or are considering doing so.
While I have my doubts about the federal courts willingly loosening their grip on power, I do see value in pursuing this. The so-called "Real ID" federal law, though still on the books, has been "nullified" by enough states that the federal government continues to "delay" implementation of it.
Also, I have noted before that the Obama administration has announced that the federal government will not "circumvent state laws" with regard to medical marijuana, federal marijuana laws notwithstanding.
The federal government, in other words, can be successfully thwarted in its usurpations.
It is long past time to do so with respect to federal infringements on that which shall not be infringed.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Parkersburg: Nicholas Arnold | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
An interesting thought is that if enough states pass these types of bills then nearly everyone will be purchasing their firearms intrastate almost exclusively. After which there would be virtually no interstate commerce in firearms.
If a product is made and sold exclusively within the state to it's own citizens then it is not interstate commerce. what part of that doesn't the federal government understand. Now if a citizen takes the product out of state or sells it to someone from another state then second state has the right to enforce it's laws in regards to the product and that could result in fines, loss of product, and or jail time. California has almost done this in reverse by it's attorney general forcing gun manufacturors to meet special requirements to get their weapons into California on an "approved" list. I don't see the feds whining about this even though we cannot buy a tenth of what the rest of the country can. Why hasn't the federal government threatened California?
"Someting that doesn't leave the state isn't part of interstate commerce."
actually...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
also, note that SCOTUS was made up entirely of new dealers at the time.
Here's the thing. If enough states do this fear will keep the feds in line. I will settle for them fearing me. They have already made it plain that they respect none of us, so it seems proper that they fear us. If they don't respect us and they don't fear us either, we are doing it wrong.
Kurt,
In regards to Obama and Medical Pot, he certainly is not giving states the leeway that he lies about, I mean, claims.
http ://tinyurl.com/y96hzpp
In regards to Wyomings law having teeth, it will be determined whether they actually stick to their guns and prosecute feds.
http :// tinyurl.com/yc9r2sk
A quote from the article states that: "While that might conjure up images of Wyoming sheriffs arresting U.S. marshals who try to enforce federal laws on Wyoming guns, state Rep. Allen Jaggi, R-Lyman, said the bill was mainly intended to be a symbolic assertion of Wyoming residents' constitutional rights."
Symbolic? That's the exact problem with the FFAs that Montana et. al. have either passed or are being proposed that I can see. Symbolic doesn't tell the feds that a state is serious in keeping it's 10th Amendment freedoms, whether it be in regards to firearms, pot, or anything else.
Thanks, Jason--the link to the article about the DEA going after a Colorado medical marijuana provider is instructive, and something I hadn't seen. I don't suppose I should be surprised.
Point taken about the symbolic nature of the Firearms Freedom Laws in general, and clauses providing for the arrest and prosecution of feds in particular. Still, the fact that any states are willing to even symbolically take this step is encouraging to me.
Also, I can imagine some no-nonsense Wyoming sheriff deciding it's NOT just a symbol--might make a good novella. Wish I could write fiction--somebody call Mark Spungin.
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!