Navigation

Archive | Firearms Freedom Act

To Protect the Second Amendment, Pennsylvanians Rediscover the Tenth

By on February 23, 2013 in Constitution, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Nullification, State Sovereignty 5

After the flurry of new legislation introduced in the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2013, gun owners should consider sprucing up their spring wardrobes with Tenth Amendment t-shirts and hats.

In mid-January, State Representative Daryl Metcalfe proposed the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (HB 357) which nullifies all federal firearms laws adopted after December 31, 2012. HB 357, which provides criminal penalties for attempted enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws in Pennsylvania, amassed 67 co-sponsors in the last month.

Following closely on the heels of HB 357, State Representative Matt Gabler introduced the Firearms Freedom Act (HB 475) which prevents any federal regulation of firearms and ammunition manufactured and sold within Pennsylvania’s borders. Citing the 9th and 10th amendments as valid consideration for Pennsylvania entering in the union compact in 1787, HB 475 draws a line in the sand against federal laws that are offensive to intrastate commerce and Pennsylvania and federal constitutional guarantees of gun rights. HB 475 garnered 49 cosponsors in the last three weeks.

Despite the popularity of both pending nullification bills, several Republican and Democratic state legislators have refused to join as cosponsors, invariably citing the Supremacy Clause for the proposition that federal laws are supreme and only federal courts can say otherwise. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Michigan Legislature Works For Firearms Freedom

By on February 3, 2013 in Constitution, Firearms Freedom Act, Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 0

Michigan is yet another state that is fighting for its residents’ right to keep and bear arms. Over a dozen State House members are co-sponsoring a Firearms Freedom Act that was introduced on Jan. 24.

House Bill 4099 is supported by Reps. MacMaster, Genetski, Lauwers, Rogers, McMillin, Somerville, Pettalia, Daley, Rendon, Kurtz, Haveman, Kelly and Johnson and is intended to stop the federal gun grabbers from controlling firearms made within the State of Michigan. Michigan joins Pennsylvania, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina and a whole slew of other states that are battling back against federal gun control measures with legislation introduced during the 2013 session.

The bill asserts state sovereignty and affirms the natural rights of its citizens stating, “Amendment II of the constitution of the United States reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Michigan was admitted to statehood, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Michigan and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Michigan and the United States.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Bill Proposed To Keep Federal Hands Off Alabama-Produced Firearms

By on January 28, 2013 in Activism, Constitution, Education, Firearms Freedom Act, Government, History, Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 14

There has been a growing number of states recently looking to pass laws that nullify overreaching federal intrusions on Second Amendment rights with Alabama being one of the latest states looking to protect the natural rights of its citizens.

Alabama Senate Bill 43 is called the ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ and it intends to ‘exempt from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within the borders of Alabama.’ It was introduced on Jan. 11 and will be read and referred to the State Senate committee on Judiciary Feb. 5.

Although this bill does not go after all possible federal restrictions on guns within Alabama, it is definitely another step in the right direction toward building resistance at the state level to malevolent power grabs from Washington D.C. The text of the bill begins specifically with an explanation of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution as the foundation for this peace of legislation.

“The guaranty of [Tenth Amendment] powers is a matter of contract between the state of Alabama and its people and the United States as of the time that compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Alabama and the United States in 1819,” the bill states.

The bill continues on to cite its own State Constitution as grounds for its legitimacy and necessity saying, “Section 26 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, secures to Alabama citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of an individual Alabama citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state.”

In addition to safeguarding the Bill of Rights, the bill also contains a nice TAC-approved history lesson with references to the compact theory of the Union endorsed by Thomas Jefferson. The people of Alabama apparently don’t interpret the Constitution as giving the federal government absolute power to run roughshod over their freedoms.

Senate Bill 43 was co-sponsored by State Senators Allen, Fielding, Smith, Waggoner and Ward.

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 Firearms Freedom Acts in states around the country HERE

ACTION ITEMS

For more information on contacting your State Senator to urge their support of this bill if you are a resident of Alabama, click HERE.

Continue Reading

South Carolina reps see the light on Commerce Clause

By on March 7, 2011 in Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Founding Principles, Government, Originalism, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 1

Two state representatives in South Carolina are pushing back against a federal ban of incandescent light bulbs set to begin in January of 2012. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to impose such a ban on the citizens of the several states, and it’s nice that South Carolina noticed.

From NetRightDaily:

“State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis are taking the lead in protecting the rights of South Carolina consumers, who don’t want the federal government telling them which light bulbs they must use,” Bill Wilson the President of Americans for Limited Government said.

“The basic concept of the bill is to allow the citizens of South Carolina to be able to continue to buy incandescent light bulbs,” said State Representative Bill Sandifer, Chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee.

“It is my strong belief that the feds have overstepped the Tenth Amendment, and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lighting we can have in our homes,” Sandifer added.

Their bill (H. 3735) is essentially a version of the Firearms Freedom Acts and Intrastate Commerce Acts that have been popping up all over the country. Essentially, any light bulb manufactured and sold exclusively in South Carolina would not be subject to federal regulation.

Which is already the case, but it never hurts to repeat the obvious for emphasis when dealing with a government as corrupt and insular as the one in Washington, D.C.

Continue Reading

VA Senate Kills Intrastate Commerce Act Without a Vote

By on February 24, 2011 in Announcements, Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Elections, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Originalism, Politicians, State Sovereignty 0

Another year, another trip to the Senate Death Star for the Intrastate Commerce Act (HB1438). Without even recording a vote, the elected “representatives” on the Senate Commerce and Labor Sub-Committee #1 left Virginia residents and businesses exposed to the economic and regulatory ravages of every federal agency from the EPA to the FDA to the BATF.

When will enough be enough for Virginia voters? Statewide elections in November…

Members of the C&L Sub-Committee #1 (who should be retired to private life in 2011)

Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (D) (804) 698-7535 district35@senate.virginia.gov (chairman)
Sen. John S. Edwards (D) (804) 698-7521 district21@senate.virginia.gov
Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D) (804) 698-7509 district09@senate.virginia.gov
Sen. Thomas K. Norment, Jr. (R) (804) 698-7503 district03@senate.virginia.gov
Sen. John C. Watkins, (R) (804) 698-7510 district10@senate.virginia.gov

Continue Reading

VA Intrastate Commerce Act up for key vote tomorrow

By on February 14, 2011 in Activism, Announcements, Commentary, Constitution, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Founding Principles, Government, Nullification, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 0

Last year in Virginia, activists scored a big victory for the Tenth Amendment with the passage of HB10, the Health Care Freedom Act, but they also suffered a significant defeat. The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA), which forbid the federal government from enforcing its gun regulations on weapons and ammunition made and sold exclusively in Virginia, passed the House of Delegates in 2010 only to be killed in the Senate’s notorious ”Death Star” sub-committee.

The siginifcance of the FFA was of course not just about firearms freedom. It was also about the precedent such a law would have set for returning the federal government to its constitutional role, and restoring some measure of state sovereignty. Unfortunately, by killing the bill, a tiny minority of Virginia Senators left the entire commonwealth open to federal attack on issues that go well beyond gun control, up to and <a href="http://www.tent Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Firearms Freedom Act Introduced in Texas

By on November 16, 2010 in Firearms Freedom Act, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 11

Introduced in the Texas State House last week was House Bill 145 (HB145), the Firearms Freedom Act. The bill, introduced by Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, states that:

The Legislature of the State of Texas declares that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Texas, as described by Chapter 2003, Business & Commerce Code, as added by this Act, that remains within the borders of Texas:

(1) has not traveled in interstate commerce; and
(2) is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Since 2009, 8 states have passed similar legislation as law – Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Alaska and Arizona. And, here at the Tenth Amendment Center we expect to see at least a dozen other states consider Firearms Freedom Acts in 2011. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Alaska Firearms Freedom Act Takes Effect Today

By on July 1, 2010 in Firearms Freedom Act, Sovereignty Movement 2

From the “Way up North” blog:

The local NBC affiliate is all wee-wee’d up this morning, having suddenly discovered that Gov. Sean Parnell signed “the Firearms Freedom Act,” which exempts firearms, accessories and ammunition made and kept in state from federal gun regulations. The firearms in question also must have “Made in Alaska” stamped on them.

That law goes into effect today; the talking heads blathered something-or-other about Montana, but neglected to mention Tennessee having done the same thing, with the same result: letters from the BATFE threatening dire results if gun dealers attempt to follow state law.

Alaska now joins Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, and Arizona as the eighth state to have passed the act into law.

The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce between the states and 18 USC 922 makes it unlawful for any person not licensed as a manufacturer or dealer in firearms to engage in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms. Collectively, the Interstate Commerce Clause and 18 USC 922 are used by the federal goverenment as a means to regulate firearms.

The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act addresses this by exempting firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in the state from all federal firearm control laws including registration, as firearms that meet these criteria cannot be regulated by the federal government because they have not traveled in interstate commerce.

In a prepared statement, the Act’s sponsor, Representative Mike Kelly said: “The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act frees Alaskans from overly-bureaucratic and restrictive federal firearm regulation, and allows our state to assume the responsibility for regulation. The Interstate Commerce Clause is used by the federal government to regulate firearms that cross state borders. The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act makes it clear that Alaskans will be responsible for firearms that are made in Alaska, for use in Alaska, and have ‘Made in Alaska’ stamped on them.”

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page

Continue Reading

Eight and Counting: Parnell Signs Alaska Firearms Freedom Act

By on May 27, 2010 in Firearms Freedom Act, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 14

Today, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell signed House Bill 186 (HB186), the Firearms Freedom Act. It passed the House by a vote of 32-7 and the Senate by a vote of 18-1. Alaska now joins Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, and Arizona as the eighth state to have passed the act into law.

The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce between the states and 18 USC 922 makes it unlawful for any person not licensed as a manufacturer or dealer in firearms to engage in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms. Collectively, the Interstate Commerce Clause and 18 USC 922 are used by the federal goverenment as a means to regulate firearms.

The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act addresses this by exempting firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in the state from all federal firearm control laws including registration, as firearms that meet these criteria cannot be regulated by the federal government because they have not traveled in interstate commerce.

In a prepared statement, the Act’s sponsor, Representative Mike Kelly said: “The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act frees Alaskans from overly-bureaucratic and restrictive federal firearm regulation, and allows our state to assume the responsibility for regulation. The Interstate Commerce Clause is used by the federal government to regulate firearms that cross state borders. The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act makes it clear that Alaskans will be responsible for firearms that are made in Alaska, for use in Alaska, and have ‘Made in Alaska’ stamped on them.”

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page

Continue Reading

Nine and Counting: Oklahoma Legislature Passes the Firearms Freedom Act

By on April 21, 2010 in Firearms Freedom Act, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 2

The Oklahoma legislature has passed Senate Bill 1685 (SB1685) the Firearms Freedom Act.  It first passed the State Senate in March by a vote of 39-3 and the House concurred yesterday by a vote of 81-14.

Upon an expected signature from the Governor, Oklahoma will become the 9th state to pass the act into law, joining Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Arizona, and Alaska – who’s governor is also expected to sign the act into law shortly.

The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce between the states and 18 USC 922 makes it unlawful for any person not licensed as a manufacturer or dealer in firearms to engage in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms. Collectively, the Interstate Commerce Clause and 18 USC 922 are used by the federal goverenment as a means to regulate firearms.

The Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act addresses this by exempting firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in the state from all federal firearm control laws including registration, as firearms that meet these criteria cannot be regulated by the federal government because they have not traveled in interstate commerce.

From the bill:

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured or assembled commercially or privately in the state of Oklahoma and that remains within the borders of this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

NULLIFICATION

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page

Continue Reading