Introduced by Oklahoma State Senator Nathan Dahm is the Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. Senate bill 548 (SB548) would nullify any and all federal acts, orders, laws, statutes, rules, or regulations of the federal government on personal firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.
The bill states, in part:
“federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations, bans, or registration requirements regarding firearms constitute an infringement on the individual right, are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers, and are hereby declared to be invalid in the State of Oklahoma, shall not be recognized by this state, are specially rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”
The legislation also provides for criminal penalties for federal agents who try to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, rules, regulations, orders, and the like:
Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections not to exceed five (5) years, or by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment
While a number of states, including Wyoming, South Carolina, Indiana, and others – are looking to go head to head with the feds on specific issues under the 2nd amendment, the Oklahoma legislation, along with bills in Texas and Missouri, is the strongest introduced anywhere in the country so far.
Tenth Amendment Center national communications director, Mike Maharrey summed up the sentiment:
“When you’ve got people like Feinstein talking about major bans and Biden telling us that all they need is an executive order, you know these folks are willing to go all the way. So, it’s good to see these folks in Oklahoma and other states go all the way as well, all the way in support the 2nd Amendment without any ifs, ands, or butts. The feds have absolutely zero constitutional authority to make any laws over your firearms. Period.”
The Second Amendment was not created to give the right to keep and bear arms to the people. The founders acknowledged that the people already had those rights. The 2nd was intended to protect them by keeping the federal government off their backs.
Robert Natelson writes in The Original Constitution “The Second Amendment served purposes besides buttressing the natural right of self-defense and the reserved power of armed resistance. By guaranteeing continuation of the state militias, it strengthened state power in the state-federal balance…By protecting the militia, the Amendment promoted citizen involvement in government military affairs.”
“The purpose of the Second Amendment suggests that the word “arms” should be interpreted rather broadly to include a range of military and self defense weapons,” Natelson explained.
The bill was introduced on January 15, 2013 and read for the first time in the House. It has yet to be assigned to a committee. But, with 61 co-sponsors, strong grassroots pressure will help get this bill moving forward.
Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect a number of other states considering similar legislation in the coming weeks.
LEGISLATION AND TRACKING
If you would like to see model legislation to introduce in your state to nullify federal firearm laws, please see The Tenth Amendment Center’s Model Legislation: The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act.
Track the status of 2nd Amendment preservation legislation in states around the country HERE
ACTION ITEMS
Oklahoma residents can help pass this bill by contacting their state reps to support the bill right now. http://www.oklegislature.gov/findmylegislature.aspx
Come on Oregon. I believe in you!
As an Oklahoman, my concern is with the terminolgy of using firearms instead of “arms”. I’ve contact my Oklahoma state senator (Holt) and state rep (Echols). I sent the following to both:
In light of the recent events, I would like to raise a point of consideration in the event the Oklahoma state legislature moves forward with legislation protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
The word “arms” in the Second Amendment is critical in the current debate. In many pieces of legislation introduced in other state legislatures and assemblies to support the right to keep or bear arms, (or to restrict the right), I am hard pressed to find the word “arms”. The term “firearm(s)” and/or “weapon(s)” is used most often, neither of which is used in the text of the Second Amendment. And thus, theoretically, legislation purported to support the right to keep and bear “arms” would in effect by useless. And legislation purported to infringe on “firearms & weapons” would be effective.
By using the term “arms” in place of the common terms “firearms & weapons” in legislation designed to protect the right to keep and bear arms, such legislation is in complete accord with the Second Amendment in protecting the right to keep and bear “arms”. Any legislation thereafter that seeks to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms that uses the terms “firearms & weapons” would be null and void as they would not be describing that which the Second Amendment protects from infringement… “arms”.
I encourage you therefore to consider this point when introducing or supporting any legislation that seeks to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Although it many seem a matter of semantics, it is quite important in acknowledging that words in the English language, especially in the arena of legal terminology, unequivocally protect our rights from infringement by government. The Second Amendment protects from infringement upon “arms”. It is essential in my opinion that legislation use the exact same term of “arms” in order to protect the right.”
Echols reply:
Thank you very much for your email. Second Amendment protection is of the utmost importance to me and I will be co-authoring at least one major piece of legislation regarding it that will be offered by Representative Dan Fisher. While I have studied the issue, I have never thought about the exact issue you have raised. I think you are completely correct. Semantics do matter and as a legislator I should strive to be as exact as possible.
I am very grateful for all constituent contact, but this particular email was one of the most helpful I have received. I will take this advise into consideration when making drafting decisions on all future second amendment issues. Thank you for the thoughts.
If you ever have any further questions or concerns of any kind, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Representative Jon Echols
@dweyrich Bravo, Bravo, Bravo. Exactly. The ATF’s own definition of firearm is not the same as arms in the Constitution either. I will repost this to my FB if you don’t mind as well.
all american shoud be (gun grabbers).we should le cheat and hide ours from thenew born tryinnist……get it try to take our guns.spread the word i made it up tryinist no
Here is a thought I will probably be crucified for but I’m going to throw it out anyway. I would entertain the idea of amending the 2nd amendment. The way it is currently worded is without any scope or parameters period. The right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. The way it is worded any type of limitation in my view would be an infringement. The policies put in place during the 1930s were an infringement as well as any act since then regarding background checks, magazine capacity, assault limitations etc… would be and could be considered an infringement.
Despite this it hasn’t stopped the Federal Government from passing legislation that actually does infringe on the rights. In the 1930′s a line was arbitrarily drawn in the sand in regard to fully automatic weapons. Unless I am mistaken there is nothing to prevent that line from being redrawn to limit semi-automatics, and after the next exploited massacre maybe they can limit shotguns, or hand guns.The point I am making is that by not having any type of defined parameters, has not prevented the government from infringing on the rights. Realistically without the defined parameters the term “arms” could mean anything from a water pistol to RPG’s and grenades. I do not want to see any liberties trampled and legitimate firearms of any type should not be limited. I just wonder if having a defined scope may actually prevent, or help to prevent any further encroachments on our rights.
@ChrisSwenson none of the other rules seem to keep them in check. Our view here is that the federal government is always interested in expanding its power. so unless we build a system of checks through the states – outside of DC – to push back when they do, the end result will always be the same.
more power. no matter how good the rules are written