The Idaho legislature has passed House Bill 589 (HB589), the Firearms Freedom Act. The Senate voted 27-7 and the House passed it by a vote of 53-15. Insiders expect Governor Otter to sign the bill soon, which would make the state the 6th to have pass the act into law – joining Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota.
The bill makes law that guns or ammunition manufactured and sold in Idaho are to be exempt from all federal laws and regulation, including registration requirements – as claimed by D.C. under the power to regulate commerce “among the several states.”
The bill’s primary sponsor, Dick Harwood, told the House that the Idaho Attorney General opined that the bill is unconstitutional, but he said the intent is to force a Supreme Court case that backers hope will limit the scope of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said, “Let’s move this forward, let’s put the federal government’s back to the wall and ask them to explain why they need to get into commerce between myself and a family member.”
Under Constitutional case law as stands today, everything and anything is considered “interstate commerce” – from growing a plant in your back yard and consuming it in your home to making a choice to not purchase health insurance. Expecting the courts to turn around years of their own rulings is absurd.
If Harwood only wants to force a court case, it’s my opinion that he’s wasting his time. Decades of modern jurisprudence leaves it highly unlikely that the courts will suddenly find the original meaning of the Commerce Clause to be the law of the land.
The question, of course, is this – does Harwood know this or not? If he does, he’s clearly posturing to garner political support. If not, I believe he’s in for a rude awakening – and if he really wants to represent his people and protect their liberty, he’ll need to get a lot more backbone in his efforts.
Either way, passage of this bill is a good step forward for the 10th Amendment movement. At the very least, the more states that pass Firearms Freedom Acts, the more that the proper role of the government under the commerce clause can be brought into the public sphere. And the more we get the conversation going, the closer we’ll get to victory.
CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)
CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page
Sooner or later the constitutionality of nullification will end up with USSC. If they validate it it would go a long way towards reestablishing the relationship between the Federal and State Governments. If they rule against it it will help built popular dissatisfaction with the status-quo bringing us that much closer to a popular passion for amending the constitution. Which ever way goes it won't hurt. One road is just harder than the other.
"If Harwood only wants to force a court case, it’s my opinion that he’s wasting his time. Decades of modern jurisprudence leaves it highly unlikely that the courts will suddenly find the original meaning of the Commerce Clause to be the law of the land."
Highly unlikely or not, challenging the gov't over-reach will never be a waste of time.
Posturing to have a USSC ruling on the matter of firearms freedom per the 2nd Amendment is like asking the fox that guards the henhouse to decide upon something that it believes it has the final word upon…you might well expect a ruling not in accord with the Amendment, or rather, out of accord with the case law on the commerce clause, that's clearly not in accord with our Founders' intentions as expressed in the notes to the Constitutional Convention, Philidelphia and Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers.
Commerce Clause Invalid by Definition:
The true meaning of the commerce clause in our constitution has been compromised by definition. When our founding fathers incorporated the commerce clause in the constitution the meaning of the word "regulate" was very different than it now has become. At the time the commerce clause was authored the word "regulate" meant "to make work", not "control" as it is now deamed to be. The founding fathers intent was to keep states from placing tarrifs on goods and services provided. It is simple logic that the framers of the constitution intent was to limit the powers of the federal government, thus allowing "control" of commerce between the states would never have been their intent. If in fact the meaning of the word "regulate" had meant "control", which it did not, the individual states would have never ratified it. States need to reclaim the control of commerce lost to the fed simply because Websters changed the meaning of a word.
respectfully,
Art Phillips
Constitutional Guard, Texas
225 Brian Drive
Pleasanton, Texas 78064
830-569-2968
Good for Idaho! Anything that id designed to support/strengthen states rights is good by me!