The NRA has shown up. It’s now a 2nd Amendment Issue?

I have watched in Tennessee the fight to preserve the right to bear arms in the wake of current and looming federal actions. These actions provoked by the President’s executive orders and the upcoming actions from members of Congress will prohibit, restrict, tax and infringe on the right to bear arms on the individual states constitutions and the rights of the citizens of the union. In a hearing, the Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Kelsey repeatedly said, that the the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act is not a bill about the 2nd Amendment. His reason had been, the NRA has not shown up. To him and many other advocates of federal supremacy, the people of each state are not enough of a voice for the 2nd Amendment even though the 2nd Amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Those in favor of federal supremacy have overlooked that the right to keep and bear arms is to the people.

But in Montana, the NRA did show up. His being there, is not only proof that this is about preserving the 2nd
Amendment, but it’s also a state’s rights and limiting the power of the federal government.

Brian Judy, a Montana state liason for the National Rifle Association provided testimony on HB 302.

I’m the Montana state liaison of the National Rifle Association, and we are speaking in support of HB302. As the sponsor (House Representative Krayton Kerns) indicated it’s a fairly simple bill. It would prohibit the state or local enforcement or the expenditure of state resources to enforce a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms or high capacity magazines. Some of the opponents say that there is a constitutional problem, that it (the Second Amendment Preservation Act) violates the supremacy clause. I assert that is incorrect. There are some states that are pushing similar legislation. But rather than prohibiting state enforcement, it will criminalize federal officials who come into the state and enforce federal law. It is conceivable that could have some supremacy clause issues. But that is not what this bill does. This bill is very narrow. It deals with what state and local enforcement can do. It is certainly within the purview of the state legislature to do that.

One of Montana’s own, former Ravalli county sheriff, Jay Printz generated the US Supreme Court precedent that provides the prevailing case law on this issue. That was his 1997 challenge on the interim provisions on the so-called Brady Bill that required background checks on gun purchasers. And the ruling was that it was unconstitutional. That the federal government could not commendeer local law enforcement. It basically said, allowing the federal government to draft the police of the 50 states into service would increase federal powers far beyond what the constitution intends. So that was an important ruling on states rights and limits federal power. For the purpose of the discussion of this bill. Let me close, while the feds cannot commandeer local law enforcement, the state certainly do have the right to set limits for local law enforcement. That simply is what this bill does. That gun bans are not what is wanted in Montana. With that, NRA supports HB 302.

Brian Judy has more testimony available on how federal laws not only infringe on the right to bear arms but on state’s rights in his Washington address on loopholes here. Brian Judy is an amazing speaker and gave solid testimony to the committee on federal infringements on the right to bear arms. And he has shown through Printz vs Supreme Court that it is the state’s responsibility to uphold the rights of their people. And, in other testimonies he has provided, he shows the same commitment to state’s rights and to the 2nd Amendment.


Action Alert: Tennessee 2nd Amendment Preservation Bill Moving to Committee Tomorrow!

BillofRights+GlockOn Wednesday, March 13 at 12:30 PM Central, Rep. Joe Carr will take his legislation to protect Tennesseans against a potential gun ban or registration scheme before the House Civil Justice Subcommittee. Sen. Joey Hensley will carry the bill in the Senate.

Tennessee’s HB 0042 provides for misdemeanor penalties for state or federal officials who attempt to enforce an unconstitutional gun ban against semi-automatic firearms, ammunition, or accessories.

The Tennessee bill is based on Wyoming bill HB 0104. Rep. Joe Carr did close one of the loopholes in Wyoming’s HB 0104 when filing his version in Tennessee. Wyoming’s legislation did not include ammunition as an item protected from any potential gun ban or registration scheme, however Tennessee’s HB 0042 does protect ammunition.

This bill is a good start to stopping any kind of gun grab or registration coming from Washington, DC. According to Rep. Carr, it is likely to be a difficult sell to the Tennessee General Assembly. In order to gain real protection from the state government, Tennesseans are going to have to work hard and earn it through activism and lobbying legislators to make it happen.


Nullification IS Constitutional “professor”

In an article on the website entitled “Gun proposal highlights nullification debate,” there were several statements made concerning nullification I would like to address.

First let me say that I’ll address the merits of House Bill 246 , “The Gun Rights Amendment,” in a latter posting, but one quick point. As an constitution-gavel-150x150amendment, it will not be voted on till 2014. Those that will take away our gun rights aren’t going to wait that long. We need protection NOW!

But to the statements made concerning nullification, Rep. Pittman is correct when he said, “The states created the federal government, not the other way around, and the federal government needs to learn once again to be servants of the states and not our masters”

It is also reported, “Pittman said many of his constituents believe in nullification – that a state can simply refuse to comply with federal law.”

I believe the first part is true, “many of his constituents believe in nullification,” but I think that the later part is not what Rep. Pittman said or believes. A state can only refuse to comply IF that “law” does not follow the Constitution listed under the enumerated powers granted the federal government by the states and the people.

But Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland statements concerning nullification are typical of “constitutional law professors,” and most lawyers, concerning nullification. They seem to know everything about case law decided by the Supreme Court, but know nothing about the Constitution its writers and its ratification.

Here is a quick analysis of incorrect statements made in this article concerning nullification.


Louisiana Bill Would Nullify Federal Gun Laws

Representative Jim Morris  has sponsored a bill in the Louisiana State House that “Prohibits the enforcement of federal restrictions regarding the ownership or possession of semi-automatic firearms.”

HB5 would amend the Louisiana Code concerning firearms. The text of the bill simply states that it is:

“to prohibit the enforcement of any federal law in the state of Louisiana which attempts to either ban the ownership or possession of certain types of firearms, or impose registration requirements for such firearms; to provide for criminal penalties; to provide for duties of the attorney general; and to provide for related matters.”

“The Louisiana Legislature hereby finds and declares that the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected by both the federal and state constitutions.”

If passed, this bill would nullify any federal gun control bill that would limit the citizens of Louisiana access to semi-automatic firearms, ammunition and accessories. A section from this bill reads:

Any federal law, rule, regulation, or executive order adopted or enacted on or after January 1, 2013, shall be unenforceable within the borders of the state of Louisiana if the law, rule, regulation, or executive order attempts to do any of the following:

(1) Ban or restrict the ownership or possession of a semi-automatic firearm, or any magazine, accessory, or ammunition for a semi-automatic firearm, as defined by federal law.

(2) Require that any semi-automatic firearm, magazine, accessory, or ammunition for a semi-automatic firearm be registered in any manner.

B. The provisions of this Section shall only apply to semi-automatic firearms, magazines, accessories, and ammunition for such firearms which are owned or possessed within the state of Louisiana and remain exclusively within the borders of the state of Louisiana.

If federal agents or employees try to enforce any federal “law” regarding semi-automatic firearms written after Jan.1st it will considered to be a felony in Louisiana.


Louisiana Bill Would Protect Firearms Manufactured in the State from Federal Regulation

Louisiana Representative Joseph Lopinto introduced  a bill to protect ”A Louisiana manufactured firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Louisiana pursuant to the provisions of this Part and which remains within the borders of Louisiana is not subject to federal law or federal  regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

HB45 would revise Louisiana statutes by adding “Section 1. Part V of Chapter 9 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 40:1821 through 1833, is hereby enacted to read as follows:”

(1) The Louisiana Legislature recognizes the authority of the United States Congress to regulate matters of commerce between states, and also recognizes that Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States proclaims that such laws made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.

(2) The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides that, “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


Drone restriction bill debated in Maine

by Rebecca Palermo, Constitution Campaign

The Maine state legislature has introduced a bill that would limit the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, notably requiring a search warrant before using the vehicles to photograph private property. It would also prohibit the use of facial recognition or biometric software on any law enforcement drones in Maine.

The author of the bill, Senator John Patrick, explained:

I’ve always had a problem with giving Big Brother more tools to look at the masses. I really don’t like the idea of just anyone being able to watch everyone for anything.

Critics of the bill claim that its language is too broad to be effective. Drones also have several supporters in Maine for uses like land surveys, weather monitoring, or search and rescue operations. In particular, Viking Unmanned Aerial Systems Inc., a Limington, Maine, based company, has been vocal in its support of drones for “specific uses,” and plans to begin manufacturing drones in Saco, Maine. The Maine Department of Public Safety recently bought a drone for $300, but the agency claims that it is waiting for advice from the state government as to policy for their use.