Representatives PETERSEN, TOWNSEND, WARD, GRIFFIN, BURGES, CRANDELL, SHOOTER,
BOYER, BORRELLI, SEEL and GRAY have introduced a bill in the senate that would prohibit the federal government from regulating “a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state.”
SB1112 would revise Arizona statutes by adding a section on firearms. The text of the bill simply states:
“A public servant or a federally licensed dealer who sells firearms in this state shall not enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state.”
Also,
“An official, agent or employee of the United States government shall not enforce or attempt to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state.
C. The attorney general may defend a citizen of this state who is prosecuted by the United States government for violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured and that is retained exclusively within the borders of this state.”
Furthermore the bill states:
Any federal law, rule, regulation or order that is effective on or after January 1, 2013 is unenforceable within the borders of this state if the law, rule, regulation or order attempts to do any of the following:
1. Ban or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm.
2. Require any firearm, magazine or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.
E. A person who violates subsection B of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony.
F. For the purposes of this section, “public servant” means any officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, including legislators and judges, and any person who participates, as juror, witness, advisor, consultant or otherwise, in performing a government function
SB1112 has not been assigned to a Committee yet but should be soon.
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
If you live in Arizona, contact your state legislator. Let him or her know of your concern for the 2nd Amendment and that you expect support of this legislation. Click here for contact information.
If you live outside of Arizona, still contact your state legislator. Inform him or her that you hope similar legislation will be introduced in your state.
Also, you may want to contact the sponsors of this bill and thank them:
Representatives PETERSEN, TOWNSEND, WARD, GRIFFIN, BURGES, CRANDELL, SHOOTER,
BOYER, BORRELLI, SEEL and GRAY
The States are pathetic. Language like “a personal firearm,… THAT REMAINS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THIS STATE” is laughable.
These absurd State bills do more harm than good to themselves and others—bills of surrender and submission that do nothing whatsoever to send the needed blunt message to their agent that encroachments upon their sovereignty, rights & jurisdiction shall no longer be tolerated. Instead, the language of these bills is akin to a cowering request, w/ a rider: “oh please don’t get upset and hurt us [any more than you already have]“.
They suggest the States are not the sovereigns but rather the Federal govt is the sovereign over them—as if the States are mere colonies created by the Federal govt and the People are its subjects to be governed; that the States aren’t meant to trade whatever they please without the consent of Congress; that Congress has the whole power of legislation over them; and, worse, Congress can regulate non-commercial traffic of whatever sort between State and State. In fact, using proper construction of the Constitution’s plain words, considering ALL parts TOGETHER (not expounding ala cart) and taking into consideration the fundamental principles upon which the Constitution is based and fundamental purpose of UNION, the complete opposite is obvious.
To suggest Congress has such authority over the States is to suggest Congress can disarm the States, at its pleasure and render the 2nd Amendment utterly impotent and without meaning using embargos & blockades under the pretext of regulating commerce, and under the same pretext cut off or restrict the manufacture & sale of ARMS, etc by imposing intrusive regulations & licensing of raw materials and parts needed for manufacture and ownership.
Considering the power to impose such DIRECT prohibitions and trade restrictions is not in the power to regulate commerce but the power of war, Congress is actually committing aggressions against the States using its war powers to regulate trade and manufactures. Is this what the States intended when they GRANTED and entrusted their AGENT with these powers—to use them for what was never intended and commit aggressions against us?
Consider the power to regulate commerce as it stood on Sept. 15, 1787 during debates as to whether a clause should be inserted to restrain the States from “laying tonnage”:
–Mr. Govr Morris. The States are NOT restrained from laying tonnage as the Constitution now Stands.
–Mr. Madison. Whether the States are now restrained depends on the extent of the power to regulate commerce…but seem to EXCLUDE this power of the States.
–Mr. Sherman. The power of the U.S. to regulate trade being supreme can controul INTERFERENCES of State regulations WHEN such happens; so there is no danger to be apprehended from CONCURRENT jurisdiction.
–Mr. Langdon insisted that the regulation of tonnage was an essential part of the regulation of trade, and the States ought to have nothing to do with it.
It passed in the negative, but was REMOULDED and then passed as: “No State shall without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage…”
So, if the power to regulate commerce was intended to be a broad discretionary power, then why put such explicit language in the Constitution unless the power to regulate commerce was THE OPPOSITE. This alone provides the plain proof beyond any doubt that the power to regulate commerce is NOT a broad discretionary power but a VERY NARROW ONE—a power that the framers considered to be safe without having to add limitations as was needed for other more dangerous powers.
But let’s not stop with just this proof. There are many more, with nothing in the whole works of the convention suggesting anything contrary.
Consider the liberty of the Press, that FAILED to get inserted into the main body of the Constitution for good reason, made plain by Mr Sherman, Sept 14, 1787—a right supposedly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, which we know is not a constraint on the power to regulate commerce (since that power does not extend directly to the objects themselves or their manufacturer), but on the power to tax. Even though Congress was never granted power to regulate objects DIRECTLY (other than those few expressly enumerated), it nevertheless still has power to regulate objects INDIRECTLY using indirect means, to wit, via excises:
–Mr. Pinkney & Mr. Gerry, moved to insert a declaration “that the liberty of the Press should be inviolably observed.”
–Mr. Sherman. It is unnecessary. The power of Congress does NOT extend to the Press.
On the question, to insert that declaration: it FAILED.
We now have two exceptional proofs that the power to regulate commerce does NOT extend directly to the objects themselves; for, if it did, there would be every cause for alarm and the declaration to preserve the liberty of the Press would have been inserted.
A State, being a sovereign, has a NATURAL right to regulate its own commerce within its own jurisdictions even to extinction if it chooses, but when its regulations interfere with the trade of another State, THAT is when Congress has a duty to intervene and free up the channels of commerce—NOT as an aggressor imposing interferences that hinders, favors one State over another or chokes it off—but, leavening to the States to decide for themselves what they want or don’t want to trade with each other.
Most importantly, consider this: Since the power to regulate commerce was unmistakably inserted for the purpose of peacefully facilitating commerce, then how can Congress, or any branch of the govt for that matter, justify doing the complete opposite and be the source and facilitator of the very kinds of interferences and aggressions that it, for which that power was granted, was meant to guard against—using that power, instead, as a weapon in an oppressive tyrannical manner against the States, and worse, to demand new powers not granted. Not clear on this important point? Let us go to Tuesday, August 21, 1787 and look at the denied power to tax exports—a constraint placed on taxing powers:
–Mr. Gerry was strenuously opposed to the power over exports. It might be made use of to COMPEL the States to comply with the will of the Genl Govt, and to grant it any NEW POWERS which might be DEMANDED…. It will ENABLE the Genl Govt to OPPRESS the States as much as Ireland is oppressed by Great Britain.
So, the prohibition was inserted and to this day denied Congress, even though Congress BLATANTLY violates it. What sense, though, does it make that such a precaution be inserted knowing that the power to regulate commerce would render it moot—unless, of course, the power to regulate commerce is actually VERY NARROW so as having no possibility of encroaching upon and rendering the prohibition ineffective.
Considering what is being defended—the 2nd Amendment, no less—it’s amazing that the only wording that the States can seem to fashion is more a surrender than a defense of their sovereignty and rights—words carefully chosen and arranged so as not to upset their agent that has turned adversary.
This sort of effort is long, long overdue. The States and People should secede before they allow the federal Leviathan to devour the remaining tatters of our liberty. God bless Arizona!
Now if they would just get rid of the state income tax….just saying.