States fighting back!

[BloodEclipse]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]HOMELAND REBELLION[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Another state to feds: Take your gun regs and stuff 'em[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Local governments in massive revolt against rules ordered by Washington[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]Posted: March 10, 2010[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]9:24 pm Eastern[/SIZE]



By Bob Unruh
[SIZE=-1]© 2010 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]
Utah has become the third state to adopt a law exempting guns and ammunition made, sold and used in the state from massive federal regulations under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and supporters say about 30 more states have some sort of plan for their own exemptions in the works.
Officials in Utah say they expect a lawsuit over their direct challenge to Washington if the federal government succeeds in its current case against Montana's law.
Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, who has spearheaded the Montana law, now describes himself as a sort of "godfather" to the national campaign. He confirmed Montana, Tennessee and Utah have enacted such laws.




"Wyoming and South Dakota, they have passed legislation and it's on their governors' desks," he said. "We learned today Oklahoma's House has passed a plan over to the Senate. Idaho's House has just passed it along. Alaska's has passed the House and is in the Senate Judiciary committee," he said.
The move is about far more than just the regulation of handguns and shotguns, he said.

Larry Klayman

"It's about states' rights. Firearms are the vehicle, but the subject is states' rights and an overbearing federal government," he said.
He said one of his sources of information for the Montana lawsuit compiled a list of states' rights issues such as identification, sovereignty and gun licensing that was 20 pages long.
He confirmed an emerging consensus that the federal government's role in making local decisions needs to be reined in.
"It is huge," he said. "We are glad the Firearms Freedom Act can be the point of the spear."
There only are about a dozen states that have not at least taken up the issue for discussion.
He noted other subjects also have become issues, such as regulations dealing with the sale of alcohol and tobacco.
Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
The Salt Lake Tribune reported yesterday the Utah plan was signed into law by Gov. Gary Herbert.

"There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government. Sending the message that we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government is a good thing," said Herbert in a statement.
The governor said he recognized the possibility of a lawsuit but said the cost can be minimized. In any event, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said any case probably would be delayed until Montana's decision is rendered, the newspaper reported.
The Utah plan was sponsored by Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem. Dayton said, according to the Tribune, it "illustrates the universal yearning for freedom, and shows the people still feel the spark that inspired our ancestors at Lexington and Valley Forge. My hope is that the march toward tyranny can be turned back with our votes."
In Montana, officials filed suit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and others seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana's management of its own firearms within state borders.
In a recent filing, the federal government demanded dismissal of the action, explaining it can regulate in-state commerce under the Constitution's Commerce clause.
As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3.
Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.
The government's latest filing in the case demands its dismissal, citing a lacking of "standing" for the plaintiffs and the court's lack of "jurisdiction," as well as the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The government filing argues, "The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have repeatedly held that even purely intrastate activities, such as those the MFFA purports to exempt from federal law, do affect interstate commerce and thus are within Congress' power to regulate. As a result, even if plaintiffs had standing and jurisdiction existed, plaintiffs' amended complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed."
The Commerce Clause, however, can be interpreted to have been amended by the 10th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, adopted subsequent to the U.S. Constitution, Marbut explains.
His organization said, "The Commerce Clause was amended – by the 10th Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of jurisprudence that for any conflict between provisions of a co-equal body of law, the most recently enacted must be given deference as the most recent expression of the enacting authority. This principle is ancient. Without this principle, laws could not be amended or repealed."
For example, U.S. courts repeatedly affirmed slavery before it ultimately was rejected.
There's no question that the components of the Bill of Rights have authority: Just look at the 1st Amendment, Marbut explained.
The federal government had written gun dealers in Montana as well as in Tennessee when it adopted its own version of the same law that warned against following the state laws.
The letters were distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.
In the Tennessee case, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted, "purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations."
The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.

I like the looks of that map. I think the more States that get onboard, the more teeth these laws will have.

 

[UltraRick]

"There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government. Sending the message that we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government is a good thing,"

That pretty much sums it up my opinion.

 

[AFA1CY]

"There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government. Sending the message that we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government is a good thing,"

That pretty much sums it up my opinion.

+1

Now if some of the Governors of the States grew a backbone....

 

[E5RANGER375]

Very Good!!

 

[jedi]

Looking at the map from a historical point of view it's sort of sad that the "orginal 13 states" are not the ones spearheading this. As states it's not about guns but about STATES vs FED control. I would have though that the original 13 would have led the way on this but alas it appears that the original 13 are now just as corrupt as what they wanted to get away from.

 

[jeremy]

Looking at the map from a historical point of view it's sort of sad that the "orginal 13 states" are not the ones spearheading this. As states it's not about guns but about STATES vs FED control. I would have though that the original 13 would have led the way on this but alas it appears that the original 13 are now just as corrupt as what they wanted to get away from.

Nah... Not surprised at all by this fact. The only 2 out of the Originals that have the stones for something like this would be VT or NH...

 

[BloodEclipse]

UPDATE:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]REBELLION IN AMERICA[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]5th state exempts guns. Is Washington noticing?[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]'I think they're going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out case'[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]Posted: March 15, 2010[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]9:11 pm Eastern[/SIZE]



By Bob Unruh
[SIZE=-1]© 2010 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]
A fifth state – South Dakota – has decided that guns made, sold and used within its borders no longer are subject to the whims of the federal government through its rule-making arm in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and two supporters of the growing groundswell say they hope Washington soon will be taking note.
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds has signed into law his state's version of a Firearms Freedom Act that first was launched in Montana. It already is law there, in Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, which took the unusual step of specifying criminal penalties – including both fines and jail time – for federal agents attempting to enforce a federal law on a "personal firearm" in the Cowboy State.
According to a report in the Dakota Voice, the new South Dakota law addresses the "rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades."
"As the federal government has radically overstepped is constitutional limitations in the past year or so, an explosion of states have begun re-asserting their rights not only with regard to firearms, but also in shielding themselves against government health care, cap and trade global warming taxes, and more," the report said.




South Dakota's law specifically notes "any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in South Dakota and that remains within the borders of South Dakota is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce."
The provisions are nearly a mirror of the original law penned in Montana as well as those adopted in subsequent decisions by Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming.
Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association spearheaded the Montana law and now describes himself as a sort of "godfather" to the national campaign.
He told WND the issue is not only about guns but about states' rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities.
Here are answers to all your questions about guns, ammunition and accessories.
He said he's pleased South Dakota has become No. 5, and noted Alaska, Idaho and Oklahoma all have legislation that is approaching the stage of being presented to a governor to be made into law.
The Firearms Freedom Act website also reveals that other states either with pending legislation or pending plans include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.

Map showing 5 states adopting gun exemptions (in green)

Marbut said Washington appears to be reacting the same way it did when states legalized marijuana or rejected the REAL ID national plan: by ignoring it.
"Ultimately we hope there will be lawsuits in other federal circuits, because there are two things that predispose the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case: the national scope of the issue and differing appellate decisions," he told WND.
Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said Washington likely is not anxious for a confrontation.
"I think they're going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case," he said today.
"When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws," he said.
WND reported earlier when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation.
But when Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed his state's bill into law, it included penalties for any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming including up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.
The bellwether likely is to be a lawsuit pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.
As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3, 2009.
Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.
The government's filing in the case demands its dismissal, citing a lacking of "standing" for the plaintiffs and the court's lack of "jurisdiction," as well as the Constitution's Commerce clause. The government filing argues, "The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have repeatedly held that even purely intrastate activities, such as those the MFFA purports to exempt from federal law, do affect interstate commerce and thus are within Congress' power to regulate. As a result, even if plaintiffs had standing and jurisdiction existed, plaintiffs' amended complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed."
The Commerce Clause, however, can be interpreted to have been amended by the 10th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, adopted subsequent to the U.S. Constitution, Marbut explains.
His organization said, "The Commerce Clause was amended – by the 10th Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of jurisprudence that for any conflict between provisions of a co-equal body of law, the most recently enacted must be given deference as the most recent expression of the enacting authority. This principle is ancient. Without this principle, laws could not be amended or repealed."
Learn what you can do about your nation. Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal
For example, U.S. courts repeatedly affirmed slavery before it ultimately was rejected.
There's no question that the components of the Bill of Rights have authority: Just look at the First Amendment, Marbut explained.
In an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a nullification.
"Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," Boldin wrote.
"When a state 'nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or 'non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens," he continued.

 

[jbombelli]

I am waiting to see a standoff between armed federal agents and armed sheriff's deputies or state police over this issue.

I fear that is coming.

 

[mrjarrell]

I am waiting to see a standoff between armed federal agents and armed sheriff's deputies or state police over this issue.

I fear that is coming.

Unlikely to happen, as most of these bills have no provision for enforcement. The only exception, as I recall is New Hampshire. Most enforcers are going to roll over and let the feds do whatever they want. We've seen plenty of this already with the war on drugs in places where medical marijuana is legal. The cops jump at the chance to run with the feds enforcers, just as they will with this.

 

[jbombelli]

Unlikely to happen, as most of these bills have no provision for enforcement. The only exception, as I recall is New Hampshire. Most enforcers are going to roll over and let the feds do whatever they want. We've seen plenty of this already with the war on drugs in places where medical marijuana is legal. The cops jump at the chance to run with the feds enforcers, just as they will with this.

Then there's no real point in passing it at all. It's just pointless grandstanding. If that's the case, why all the discussion?

 

[mrjarrell]

Then there's no real point in passing it at all. It's just pointless grandstanding. If that's the case, why all the discussion?

Why indeed? Without teeth these are meaningless gestures to placate a small segment of the voting populace. As long as legislatures fail to put in enforcement provisions these will mean nothing.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Unlikely to happen, as most of these bills have no provision for enforcement. The only exception, as I recall is New Hampshire. Most enforcers are going to roll over and let the feds do whatever they want. We've seen plenty of this already with the war on drugs in places where medical marijuana is legal. The cops jump at the chance to run with the feds enforcers, just as they will with this.

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds has signed into law his state's version of a Firearms Freedom Act that first was launched in Montana. It already is law there, in Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, which took the unusual step of specifying criminal penalties – including both fines and jail time – for federal agents attempting to enforce a federal law on a "personal firearm" in the Cowboy State.

More States need this language in their laws.

 

[mrjarrell]

More States need this language in their laws.

Agreed. It's totally useless without, since the local enforcers will side with the feds every time.

 

[Expat]

Then there's no real point in passing it at all. It's just pointless grandstanding. If that's the case, why all the discussion?

I heard a discussion of this on Tom Gresham's GunTalk. They want enough States to adopt this so that when the matter finally ends up before SCOTUS, the Court will be able to rely upon the EMERGING CONSENSUS (term of legal art) as part of its reasoning in finding on behalf of the States. There is apparently a well thought out and planned attack going forward on this issue. Similar to the strategic plan that is ongoing that has McDonald and Heller as just launching points.