PA State Representative Introduces Legislation to Nullify Federal Gun-Grabbing

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.

Red States better be doing the same and more. The federal is crushing the states and the constitution.

Save American Jobs by stopping Gun Control. 

Seems strange to have to enact laws when they already exist.  How many will be enough?  If they ignore the existing ones, what makes us think additional layers of laws will have effect?  What can be more definitive than "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?

In NY State, the civil rights law reads, "the right to keep and bear arms CANNOT be infringed".  That did not stop Benedict cuomo presidential pretender or the rest of the Albany snakes from defiling the Bill of Rights.  Why can't clueless gun-grabber politicians be prosecuted or impeached for violation of civil liberties guaranteed by State law and the US Constitution!!?? 

If a drunk runs a child over we will now ban cars!!  This is the absurdity our government has stooped to.  

Don't tell me that they are "well intentioned".  The sad thing is they know damned well that no "children will be saved".  But they certainly will solidify their death grip on the controls of society, if they are allowed.

Love it!!  Surprising considering their pro stance on the animal rights agenda.  But great nontheless!

Way to go Pennsylvania. Totally support States rights and The Constitution which is the Law of our Land.