Oklahoma State Representative Lewis Moore (R-96) has introduced a bill very similar to the original Montana Firearms Freedom Act.
The purpose of this bill is to exempt firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition from federal regulation if they are manufactured and maintained in the State of Oklahoma.
HB2805, introduced on Feb. 3, clarifies that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not extend to products manufactured and sold entirely within Oklahoma’s borders. This bill has yet to receive any co-sponsors thus far. It currently sits in the House States’ Rights Committee pending further action.
The bill cites both the 9th and 10th Amendments and gives an accurate portrayal of Constitutional history saying that the “guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Oklahoma and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Oklahoma and the United States in 1907.”
This legislation seeks to protect gun rights, but it does not rely on the Second Amendment. It rests exclusively on the intended limitations of the commerce power delegated to Congress. The Second Amendment Preservation Act takes a more holistic approach to protect the right to keep and bear arms by prohibiting state cooperation with enforcement of ALL federal laws violating the Second Amendment. You can find more information about the Second Amendment Protection Act HERE.
THE COMMERCE POWER
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.
Natelson writes, “Federalists repeatedly represented that the Constitution would leave the states as the sole government regulators of the vast majority of human actives. They affirmed that the central government would have almost no role over…use of personal property outside commerce, wills and inheritance, business regulation and licensing, manufacturing” and others.
Also Natelson writes, “The Constitution banned states from imposing duties on imports or exports without the consent of Congress…otherwise, states were free to regulate commerce with foreign nations–and even to impose embargoes on goods from outside–subject to preemption by Congress or by federal treaties.”
Latest posts by Shane Trejo (see all)
- In Effect Today: New Hampshire Law Broadening Medical Marijuana Program, Further Nullifying Federal Prohibition - September 4, 2015
- On Education, Majority Supports Federalism, Rejects National Control - September 1, 2015
- Rubio and Walker Support Another Version of Obamacare. It’s up to the States to Bring it Down. - September 1, 2015