Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 04/06/2010 9:30:35 AM PDT by george76
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2307--Arizona's version of the Firearms Freedom Act, into law. This makes six states (Monatana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, and South Dakota are the others) that have some version of the Firearms Freedom Act on the books as law.
Idaho will become the seventh, if and when Governor Butch Otter signs Idaho House Bill 589 into law, as expected.
For those unfamiliar with the FFA, it's a challenge to the federal government's grotesquely expansive use of the insterstate commerce clause to regulate--well . . . everything, whether it has anything to do with interstate commerce, or not. Thus, the FFA stipulates that firearms (and ammunition, and firearms accessories) manufactured wholly within the state, and then kept in the state, are not subject to federal law.
Here in Missouri, the House of Representatives has not one, but two FFA bills under consideration...
Liberty doesn't just happen--it needs to be worked for. Getting that work done can make the difference between having to work for liberty, and having to fight for it.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
One more
Why do we need this? The Constitution already says we can bear arms and that right cannot be “infringed”, i.e. limited or restricteds.
The only thing this can do is to say what kind of arms you can bear while restricting all others. That is less than the what the Constitution already protects and therefore totally unconstitutional. If the courts ignore the Constitution, they can certainly ignore this.
One more thing. Rules of statutory construction require that a specific statute supercedes a general one and a later statute supercedes a prior one and that the Constitution is a statute superior to that enacted by any legislature.
Therefore, the specific, plenary and unrestricted right to bear any arms protected in the 2nd Amendment supercedes Congress’s general power in the original Constitution to regulate comnmerce among the states, i.e. my right to purchase or carry arms over state lines. These statutes purport to protect a right that is less than that we already possess in the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
Maybe the Colorado government can be changed enough to do the same here.
But nullification is more than just a mere rhetorical statement or a resolution affirming the position of the legislature. To effectively nullify a federal law requires state action to prevent federal enforcement within the state.
Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/colorado-south-dakota-firearms-freedom-act-introduced/
We are pushing back everywhere we can even as the fascists continue to ignore the Constitution.
Defiance of Federal tyranny is the first step to secession. Now we need a treaty between those states that permit trafficking in weapons between and among Free states without Federal interference.
In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said:
“The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist”
We may have to wait until next year as Ritter and other DUmmies are still asleep on this :
It is time to DUmp the DUmmies!
That cinches it, I’m going to move to Tennessee eventually.
State nullification requires the federal courts to agree, based on some other principle. Nullification itself is not a recognized statutory principle.
On the other hand, a gun and the willingness to use it to deadly effect in defense of one’s own rights, including the right to bear arms, is its own nullification of unjust laws.
Are you new to this country?
so how soon are the gun manufacturers gonna start building small factories in these states?
South Dakota has no personal income tax.
Sounds like a good opportunity for a few FRiends in SD and elsewhere ?
Sounds like a great opportunity for our SD freeper friends.
No. That’s why I don’t think more words do any good.
Only ballots and bullets.
What about class III weapons made locally? I assume I'll still need State approval, but can dispense with the 6-9 month wait on the Feds. Any takers?
IIRC all versions of it exclude machine guns from the intra-state protection. Some, however, protect suppressors and other NFA items by name/description or by happy accident.
Understand that the feds have an unwritten ranking of seriousness of crimes. Murder (and threats thereof) of federal officials is at the top, soon followed by postal fraud and unregistered machineguns. Murder/rape/etc. of commoners is way down the list from there. Ergo, while the states are pushing the sovereignty/nullification/states-rights issues with this FFA law, they don’t want to hit the “third rail” of machineguns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.