Sen. Margaret Dayton (R – Orem) is the sponsor of S.B. 11, Utah-State Made Firearms Protection Act. In a recent email she stated, “My Firearms Freedom Act passed out of Interim Committee in Nov – and I anticipate that it will go directly to the floor when the Legislature convenes in January. I am pleased to sponsor this bill as it promotes the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments.” We are pleased to support your efforts in sponsoring this bill Sen. Dayton, we believe it is always right to defend those you represent while upholding your oath. In short, I believe you are right.
Sen. Dayton’s bill is among the growing movement of states claiming some form of a Firearms Freedom Act. There is action in Texas, Tennessee (whom the ATF wrote a letter against already), Florida, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Michigan, Montana, and South Carolina. All have state legislatures who are all willing to take a 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendment stand for their citizens. All these states also have representatives who are not so willing, as does Utah.
According to Brandon Loomis’s recent Salt Lake Tribune article, Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck (D-Salt Lake City) “questioned why Utah would invite its own lawsuit before seeing how Montana’s law fares in court.” I am so glad Rep. Chavez-Houck is not in the military standing as an ally in the face of oncoming enemy troops. It would be the same as asking why go into the fight before we know if the allies get whooped. Whether or not Montana’s law (which led the charge) gets upheld or denied in a lawsuit does not make federal usurpation of Constitutional powers right. In short, I believe you are wrong Rep. Chavez-Houck.
However, you are not wrong alone. There are many who either will not stand with other states or who believe the Supreme Court’s bad precedent regarding the ‘Commerce Clause’ is actually good. The claws of the federal government grew in 1942 when Wickard v. Filburn was settled by the Stone Court.