Madison County, Tennessee Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Resolution

MadisonCoCourthouseThe Madison County Commission passed its 2nd Amendment Preservation Resolution when it met for its regular meeting on Tuesday morning, February 19.  Introduced by Commissioner Adrian Eddleman, the resolution is based on a model provided by the Tenth Amendment Center.  The vote was 18 in favor, 6 votes against, with one commissioner absent.

A significant crowd of supporters showed up to support the passage of the resolution, mostly members of the Tennessee Firearms Association and Tennesseans for Liberty according to Eddleman.

After the passage of the resolution, Commissioner Eddleman stated, “The legislation was public beforehand and Commissioners had obviously already formed strong opinions. I received correspondence from several constituents and it was 100% in favor of the resolution. While none of the public spoke, commissioners obviously knew the reason for the crowds attendance as some constituents spoke favorably about the measure to their commissioners before the meeting.”

Commissioner Doug Stephensen“It is a fundamental right and we don’t need a knee-jerk reaction from the government because of what has happened lately,” commissioner Doug Stephenson said. “It’s worked well for 200 plus years.”

The resolution says in part:


Oklahoma House Committee Passes Firearms Freedom Act, 13-0

The Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act unanimously passed out of the House Public Safety Committee Wednesday.

HB2021 would exempt firearms manufactured and remaining in the state of Oklahoma from federal law, federal taxation or federal regulation, including registration.

The bill passed 13-0 and will move on to the calendar committee for further consideration. If approved, it will head to the House floor for a vote.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Sean Roberts (R-Hominy), finds its foundation in a proper understanding of the commerce clause.

“Regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

It continues, nullifying the unconstitutional federal expansion of the commerce power by reasserting state control over items manufactured and retained in the state:

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Oklahoma and that remains exclusively within the borders of Oklahoma is not subject to federal law, federal taxation or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the Oklahoma Legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

The Constitution states, “The Congress shall have power… to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes…The Congress shall have Power…to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Robert Natelson notes in The Original Constitution that there are misconceptions of the commerce clause in the Constitution, that the regulation of commerce is not exclusively enumerated to Congress and that commerce did not include everything under the sun. The states still have immense power to regulate commerce within their own state and even with foreign nations.


Wyoming Firearms Protection Act Advances in State Senate

HB104, the Wyoming Firearms Protection Act cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday and will now move to the full Senate for debate and vote.

The measure passed the House 46-13 recently. The bill passed by the House also included criminal penalties for federal agents who violate the proposed state law. The Senate Judiciary Committee struck those provisions to gain concurrence and move the bill forward. The amendment does call on the state Attorney General to defend a person’s right to keep and bear arms, and the Senate version of the bill would prohibit the state or any of its agencies from complying with federal acts that violate the Firearms Protection Act.

House sponsor Rep. Kendell Kroeker expressed some disappointment with the Senate committee action, but remained positive. He said that there are still opportunities to get the full, original version of his bill passed into law.

“Please e-mail the Senate and ask them to give the bill time to be heard on the floor and to remove the committee amendment and restore the bill to its original purpose,” he said. “If it passes the Senate in its amended form, the House will have to vote to accept the changes. If we do not accept the changes, it will go to a conference committee. So there is still the possibility it can be fixed, but it would be best to get it fixed before it comes out of the Senate.”

Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said he’d like to see the criminal penalties reinstated, but even the amended version of the bill would have some serious impact.


Oregon Lawmaker Introduces Tough Second Amendment Protection Act

Add Oregon to the ever-growing number of states considering legislation to protect their citizens’ basic right to keep and bear arms from overreaching federal acts.

On Monday, Rep. Tim Freeman (R-Roseburg) filed HB3006. The bill stands among the most ambitious  Second Amendment Protection Acts in the U.S. It would essentially nullify all federal gun regulations in the state of Oregon.

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules and regulations relating to firearms are invalid and may not be enforced in the State of Oregon.

The bill directs the Oregon Legislative Assembly to adopt all measures necessary to block federal enforcement of firearms regulations and makes provisions of the act applicable before, on or after its passage.

Nine fellow representatives and six senators joined Freeman in sponsoring HB3006.

While many will undoubtedly balk at the scope of the proposed legislation, Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey called the bill legitimate and necessary in light of the federal government’s actual authority to regulate firearms.


Nebraska’s Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act

Nebraska state senator Paul Schumacher has introduced the “Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act.”  In summary:

  1. “A law enforcement agency shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.” (section 3)
  2. This prohibition does not apply to efforts to “counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk.” (section 4)
  3. “An aggrieved party may initiate a civil action against a law enforcement agency to obtain all appropriate relief in order to prevent or remedy a violation” (section 5)
  4. “Evidence obtained or collected in violation of the Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act is not admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution” (section 6)

At first pass this sounds like a good bill that makes an effort to defend the protections assured us in the bill of rights.  The bill does afford some well desired protections, but leaves holes that are far too big, and hands over state sovereignty to the federal government.  There are a few positive points to the bill, but some negative ones as well.


Judge Napolitano: Will States’ Nullification Of Federal Gun Control Laws Hold Up In Court?

Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in on the push by nine states to pass laws to block the federal government from restricting gun ownership. State lawmakers are anticipating some sort of gun control legislation to be passed at the federal level, possibly an assault weapons ban. The proposals argue that guns made and kept within a state’s borders should not be federally regulated.

Here’s more background from