New Hampshire flag leaves plenty of room to add
"BATFE Keep Out"
Related Articles
-
Gun fight with the feds in Big Sky Country
-
Montana throws down the federal gun-control gauntlet
-
Montana's stand for 2nd and 10th Amendments
-
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
We've talked many times before (a few links are below the flag picture at the right) about the growing movement on the part of states to assert their sovereign powers as protected by the Tenth Amendment. In the context of discussions here, this comes down to states proposing (and in the cases of Montana and Tennessee, already passing) laws that would exempt firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories manufactured in-state, and kept in-state, from federal regulation. This, as one might expect, doesn't sit well with the feds, and is being challenged. The BATFE, in the meantime, has already announced its intention of ignoring such laws.
That is not stopping more states from hopping on the state sovereignty bandwagon, with the lastest to do so being New Hampshire.
Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session in New Hampshire, House Bill 1285 (HB1285) seeks to “exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation.”
Don't call the Live Free or Die state a copycat, though--the New Hampshire bill contains a very interesting provision not (to my knowledge) seen in any of the other states' legislation.
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. (emphasis added)
Hmm--I'm guessing that's not going to sit well with the BATFE, or the entire federal government, for that matter.
This will be something to watch with interest--first, to see if the bill passes, and second, to see if New Hampshire backs up its position with force, and actually arrests and prosecutes feds who persecute New Hampshire residents who obey New Hampshire law, but run afoul of federal law.
Update: Looking at the text of the bill, I see another interesting difference between New Hampshire's state sovereignty bill and those of other states. The other states' legislation--I think in every case--defer to the feds on many NFA items (although generally not suppressors--AKA "silencers"). In other words, Montana and Tennessee (and others) are not at this time challenging federal authority to regulate machine guns, large bore firearms, etc. That was one of the things that disappointed me a bit about their legislation, although I suppose there are arguments that could be made for that approach, from the tactical perspective of trying to first get the bill passed in the state legislature, and second to prevail in federal court. In New Hampshire's legislation, on the other hand, I see no such exception. Ambitious.
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 | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Nicely done New Hampshire.
Nice to see what I have been advocating for years actually has some traction with a state legislature. No, I don't think they did it because of me, but who knows? Someone somewhere may have read it from myself or others and repeated it, and passing mouth to ear reached someone in a position to see the sense in it. Regardless this is a very welcome development. Though other states have not included the language in their bills, they still have other laws that would allow them to prosecute those who assault citizens of their respective states in violation of that state's law.
Nicely done indeed, NH
SA, I thought of you as soon as I saw that provision in NH's bill.
God bless them. The Fed. is so far out of control, it's incomprensible.
Last year we had a bill in the legislature to reaffirm states rights HCR6. The Democrat majority voted it down by only one vote. The Rep who was instrumental in its defeat, who vows to go after this again, is Rep. Mike Rollo from Rollinsford (Strafford County). Rollo is a target in 2010 for voting out of office.
gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376181
GO New Hampshire! I certainly hope you have enough votes to pass this bill into law, and that your prosecutors and LEO's have the fortitude to stand up for State sovereignty and enforce it! My own readings uphold the conviction that such laws are entirely Constitutional and enforceable upon agents of the federal government who are acting beyond their authority. It's about time States fulfilled the responsibility to protect their citizens from the illegal, unConstitutional actions of the federal government and its agents.
Go for it NH! The Federal Government is getting to big for their britches.
Does anyone know of any federal statutes that could be used in a declared National state of emergency that would allow the federal government to preemptively deputize state and local law enforcement officers and officials to act as agents of the federal government? You see where I'm going with this.
Kudos to New Hampshire.
Joshua, although there may not be any formal legislative statute, an executive order would have the same effect.
Nice try N.H....would you care to try seceding from the United States next? That was answered by Lincoln with a resounding NO!
Federal authority reigns supreme in Federal matters. Try reading the U.S. Constitution, THEN passing meaningful laws. Duh!
I have no desire to own a gun, but this makes me want to move to NH.
leemcgee, I see your point about the executive order. It would then come down to the individual state Attorney General's along with the state and local Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to either participate or refuse compliance with such an executive order.
To say things would get interesting at that point is an understatement.
Says Sovereignty What?:"Federal authority reigns supreme in Federal matters."
And intrastate commerce is NOT a federal matter, so "federal authority" can go stick it where the sun don't shine.
I hope this movement expands to other things. I have always been a big state's rights advocate.
Thomas Jefferson was right.
fact is the civil war was fought for basically the same reasons to much northern elitist money trying to dictate to the south what they could do. now we have an elitist govt who are controlled by foreign banking cabals and mega war machine corporations telling all states what to do. it is past time to take America back.
Any of you guys check out the Free State Project? If you liked the content and significance of this article, the FSP is right up you're alley.
"Does anyone know of any federal statutes that could be used in a declared National state of emergency that would allow the federal government to preemptively deputize state and local law enforcement officers and officials to act as agents of the federal government? You see where I'm going with this."
If they can, I doubt that it would allow the LEOs to ignore state law and enforce federal law if the two are in conflict.
"Nice try N.H....would you care to try seceding from the United States next? That was answered by Lincoln with a resounding NO!"
Good work. Citing Lincoln's actions as a valid Constitutional precedent. The man couldn't even spell Constitution.
"Federal authority reigns supreme in Federal matters. Try reading the U.S. Constitution, THEN passing meaningful laws. Duh!"
Oh, good, so the fed's will be abiding by these state laws which only affect items not crossing state lines in commerce, then?
We need laws like this in Alberta so we can kick the left wing socialists OUT and keep them out. Take back the prairies for God's people!
Good precedent, move it forward!
Fred in N.h.
For anyone who wonders if a state can keep the feds out of their state. Each sheriff of every county in every state has the Constitutional right to to prohibit any person from entering their county! They could be arrested, charged and prosecuted.
What really impressed me about this legislation is that the other side of the nullification coin is being addressed: interposition.
Unless a State is going to get in between the Feds and a State's citizen/resident a nullification act is nothing but hot air.
Hear hear for Kurt Hofmann as you are dead right.
To SovereignWhat?
Go actually read the constitution's words on commerce. There are 2 kinds and you need to know the difference between inTERstate and inTRAstate.
Feds were only charged with regulating interstate. According to the writers of that section, the feds are responsible to keep commerce moving between states "without hindrance". This was written when European states within a nation were charging fees to move goods from one area to another. The only reason the feds regulate interstate commerce to to PREVENT extra fees or taxes being added to goods. This has nothing whatever to do with goods produced and sold within a state.
The Feds will create something out of thin air to null this and then have their way. They create the devistation only for the people to seek their help and refuge
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!