Washington State Representative Matthew Shea along with 21 co-sponsors, have introduced a “Firearms Freedom Act” for the state – it’s filed as House Bill 2709 (HB2709).
If passed, the bill would provide that:
a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Washington and that remains within the borders of Washington is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is taking the position 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.
HB2709 specifically addresses this principle:
Any federal law, rule, order, or other act by the federal government violating the provisions of this act is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered as null and void and of no effect in this state.
Washington’s bill brings the number to 15 states that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year – most recently, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Virginia and Missouri.
Already, Tennessee and Montana have passed a version of the Firearms Freedom Act into law. The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MTSSA) and the 2nd Amendment Foundation (SAF) have jointly filed a federal lawsuit to validate the principles of the law.
Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect to see nearly two dozen states consider similar legislation in the coming legislative session.
CLICK HERE to track all current Firearms Freedom Act legislation
This bill is unnecessary, the person who drafted it is clearly not a lawyer.
Federal firearm legislation is based on the Constitution's Commerce Clause. In essence, Congress is saying that because guns cross and are sold across state lines, it has the power to regulate them.
If you understand that, you'll also understand why this bill is unnecessary, firearms manufactured and sold within the state aren't subject to Federal Regulation under the Commerce Clause.
So for all you who support this bill, you are supporting a waste of time that in all likelihood is just a publicity stunt to shore up support from some Republican's base.
Also I'm a Democrat who supports guns rights. If you register your weapons and are informed on how to use them effectively, I see no problem with people owning military style weapons (assault riffles, large caliber machine guns).
But Congress claims the authority to regulate guns that are made in state and never leave the state – under the commerce clause.
this bill is an essential first step to pushing back against years and years of bad supreme court precedent on this. I don’t expect a court victory, but instead, hope that people will start standing up and exercising their rights whether or not the courts want to give us permission to or not.
Congress can exercise its commerce clause power over products made in and remaining in a state because of what is referred to as the "aggregate effect." Basically, even though a single gun made in Washington may never enter the stream of interstate commerce, the combined impact of ALL the guns made in Washington will effect interstate commerce–mostly by all those Washingtonians not buying guns from out of state. That is enough justification for congress to exercise its commerce clause powers.
They do it, yes. They can because we let them get away with it. But to claim that this would have been what the founders described as the power to regulate interstate commerce is nothing short of absurd.
Stay armed. Stay vigilant. Register nothing!
Aye. Democrat. Multiple gun-owner. Not a big hunter. NRA member nonetheless. The federal government has repeatedly overstepped its authority too many times now. I live in California. I will never live to see such a bill brought forth, let alone enacted here. I will of course eventually move to a state that chooses to do so. Like Arizona. The seemingly exponential rise in gun ownership in this country has, to some degree or another, restored a bit of my faith in the level of common sense amongst my fellow Americans. We cannot continue to allow the spread of the fascism that will strip us of our right to defend ourselves.
Being democrat, does neccessarily mean you are anti-gun, in fact I know plenty of democrats who carry concealed and have sizeable gun collections. So please let us not talk in generalities.
Please, if you are going to include a map of Washington, be so good as to show more than just the Seattle area. Washington State is vastly larger than just Seattle, and in fact the western part of Washington has, historically, been predominantly Democrat.
There are probably a lot more supporters of this bill (especially percentage-wise) east of the Cascade mountains.
If you would like to find out more about Matt Shea, check out his video on youtube
[youtube w73RhkbWB_o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w73RhkbWB_o youtube]