Comments on: Eight and Counting: Parnell Signs Alaska Firearms Freedom Act

By: The U.S. Already Has Strict Gun Rules.....It's Called 'The Gun Control Act Of 1968'.................Read It Right Here. - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 2 - C

Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:16:10 +0000

[...] On a more interesting note, Alaska is one of eight States (also including Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, and Arizona) that passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law. A law that grants complete federal exemption from all firearm and ammunition laws, including taxes, for any firearm or ammunition manufactured wholly within the State for use exclusively within the State. Wyoming's Firearms Freedom Act goes one step further and permits the arrest and incarceration of any federal law enforcement officers that attempt to impose federal law on these State protected firearms and ammunition. Source: Eight and Counting: Parnell Signs Alaska Firearms Freedom Act – Tenth Amendment Center Blog [...]

By: 75 Year Old Grandmother Held Down At Gunpoint As Police Shoot;Kill Her Dog - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 6 - City-Data Forum

Sun, 09 Sep 2012 21:20:05 +0000

[...] of firearms and ammunition within the State that is exempt from all federal regulation. Eight and Counting: Parnell Signs Alaska Firearms Freedom Act – Tenth Amendment Center Blog The feds can take their firearm licenses and tax stamps and shove it where the sun does not [...]

By: David

David — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:26:29 +0000

Cancel that reply please

By: David

David — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:24:35 +0000

This one seems simple, as the threat is really from the feds. The feds have to prove that your weapon has parts from elsewhere. If they do, your not covered.
The real question is enforcement. The feds have clearly made the commerce clause their vehicle for complete control. They will claim that your NOT purchasing out of state weapon parts effects interstate commerce, and claim jurisdiction anyway.

By: The Right Side of Life » States’ Rights Update: Health Care, 2nd Amendment, Immigration

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:01:41 +0000

[...] Eight and Counting: Parnell Signs Alaska Firearms Freedom Act [...]

By: Justin Spears

Justin Spears — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:47:17 +0000

Although the principle under which this law was written, and passed, is respectable, it just substitutes one level of governance for another. How so? By exempting firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in the state, the state has taken the responsibility to make sure they stay in the state. The law does not address how they are to accomplish this. Is the state of Alaska going to man all entry points and inspect for such items, insuring that they stay in the state?
What happens when, not if, any of these items find their way outside of the state, will the state then be held liable for any harm they caused?

By: Neil Gertner

Neil Gertner — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:17:13 +0000

Best of luck to you Ray…help us take our country back by starting up there.

Neil, N. CA

By: Ray Southwell

Ray Southwell — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:29:43 +0000

Mr. Boldin,

Here are the sites on the recently passed Alaska Firearms Freedom Act. The final version was not as strong as the original.

Original version stated "the attorney general shall defend a citizen of the State…" http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text….

The final version signed into law 5-26-10 states: the attorney general may defend a citizen of the State…" http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text….

It would appear the Alaska legislature and governor fall short of completely nullifying federal law. This is why I am running for State House. We need strong legislators standing up for the people against Washington D.C..

Isn't it time we do it ourselves?

Ray Southwell, RN
AIP Candidate for State House District 34

By: redthumb

redthumb — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:01:39 +0000

What one does on paper is one thing, but what ones does to defend what they have put on paper, is another. Just how far the states are willing to go to enforce their legitimate rights shall be the real test of their resolve. While it's refreshing to finally hear the states talking the talk, it will be of far more interest to see if they will walk the walk. Declaring or exercising ones rights, absent the commitment to defend them at all costs, emasculates the freeman and renders his rights void. All rights exist only to the degree one is willing to sacrifice for them.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:54:52 +0000

Nullification actions of this type consitute a useful first step in restoring state soverignity. But to move forward, we need state action on a host of less prominent and more controversial issues. The federal miminium wage, for example, cannot apply to employees whose employers are in the same state- no interstate commerce! The same case can be made for the regulation of unions where the employer and the employee are located within the same state. Etc,etc! We must elect state legislators willing to move forward on a broader front.