Posted on 08/13/2009 4:38:49 PM PDT by GregoTX
Introduced in the Michigan House on August 11, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-5232) seeks “to make certain findings regarding intrastate commerce; to prohibit federal regulation of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition involved purely in intrastate commerce in [the State of Michigan]; to provide for certain exceptions to federal regulation; and to establish certain manufacturing requirements.”
The bill was authored by Rep. Phillip Pavlov and currently has 44 co-sponsors.
While the HB5232’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:
The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under amendments IX and X of the constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.
Firearms Freedom Acts have already passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and have been introduced in a number of other states around the country. There’s been no lack of controversy surrounding them, either. The Tenth Amendment Center recently reported on the ATF’s position that such laws don’t matter:
The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.
Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:
“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”
“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”
Advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter if the federal government disagrees, or even threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma. Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, and founder of http://www.firearmsfreedomact.com/ took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:
“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills. And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.“
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.
All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.
A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws - in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law void.
While many advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.
Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.
Correct me if i am wrong but to me this sounds very similar to what Califonia has done with marijuana. Putting the state laws above the Federal ones(wich may or may not be the correct thing to do). Just like in California though i can see Federal agents coming in and enforcing the federal laws and not much caring about the new state law. This has happened countless times in California to both the stores that sell medical marijuana and the private citezens who are licensed by the state to grow it.
If my comparison is way off then i’m sorry but it jus seems like very similar ideas. It may be that the only real way to effect gun laws is to do it at the federal level unfortunatly.
County sheriffs can arrest Feds that come into a state and overides state laws. In fact there is an organization called Oathkeepers (Richard Mack) that advocates just that.
“Putting the state laws above the Federal ones(wich may or may not be the correct thing to do).”
If the Federal ones are not grounded in an enumerated power, the 10th would indicate that it would be the correct thing to do.
Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.
I've stopped scouring threads and unilaterally adding names to the ping list, so if you want on or off the list just say so.
Additional Resources:
Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
The Right Side of Life/State Initiatives
Sovereign States
Find Law(Brief narrative on 10th Amendment)
| CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES |
Include full autos and large bore or withdraw the bill.
Like people say, go huge or go home.
Some nazi character with a German accent saying "vere are your papers" isn't that persuasive any more. Besides the need for security from terrorists, there are probably illegals voting in our elections and scamming our entitlement system for multiple checks under different names. Anyone who is serious about illegal immigration should be for Real ID, because we're not dumping Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid any time soon. The blue dogs might fall on their swords for Obamascare.
Rats are exploiting voter fraud and pushing for entitlement expansions as active strategies.
It is the same. This is State Nullification, which is the theory that each State can decide that a particular federal law is Unconstitutional. The result is that particular federal law is voided within the nullifying State. This could be challenged in the federal courts, but any contrary decision would likely be nullified (e.g., California nullified Gonzalez v. Raich, in which SCOTUS ruled the federal Controlled Substances Act prohibited medical marijuana and that it was Constitutional for it to do so) The DEA did conduct raids in California under the Bush Administration, but the Liberal Messiah told them to stop doing that.
The People are getting in the face of members of the Congress. The States are conducting State Nullification. One thing is definitely clear: The Congress is too stupid to catch on to how much rage is being directed at it.
An oppresive FedGov can deprive you of your rights already by monitoring credit/debit card activity, electronic fund transfers, ATM activity, use of EZ-Pass transponders, GPS enabled gizmos, etc. We're already creating tons of electronic activity that they can monitor, in addition to security video monitors everywhere. Big brother is here already. Technology isn't the enemy. It depends on the people using it.
Can't Make It Up: Dem Rep Who Opposes Photo ID To Vote Requiring Photo ID For Town Halls
"A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws - in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law void.
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
This 10th Amendment vs. BATFE issue will hit SCOTUS fast, squarely referencing Raich.
Just because SocialSecurity/Medicare/Medicaid won’t be dumped anytime soon doesn’t mean we should consent to the historical horror of a national ID. Scams nabbing multiple entitlement checks is a problem of having entitlement checks at all, not a problem of IDs.
NY solved the “voter ID” problem without IDs: you submit a copy of your signature, and when you arrive to vote you sign and they confirm the signatures match. No IDs needed.
And IDs don’t do squat to stop terrorism. Most of the 9/11 terrorist had perfectly legit IDs.
Get back to a proper Constitutional government and there won’t be any need for RealID or the like.
Of course they are unconstitutional. The Constitution does not grant the federal government any power of prohibition. The “commerce clause” was designed to keep inter-state trade fair and efficient, not to eliminate it.
The 2ndA was added as a “we really mean it, you don’t have the power to prohibit anything, ESPECIALLY arms.”
From the Michigan board (as posted by FrdmLvr:
Here’s a little more on the Sovereignty issue still in committee. I received this in an email today and thought it might be helpful.
*******************************
HCR004 - SCR004 Michigan State Sovereignty Under the 10th Amendment, This resolution, introduced by State Senator Bruce Patterson, is a reiteration to our Federal Government that the State of Michigan will no longer adhere to or tolerate federal mandates that overstep the powers granted to them in Art 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution. Via this resolution, all Federal officials elected by the citizens of Michigan (Stabenow, Levin, and 15 Representatives) will be put on notice that their loyalty lies with the sovereign State of Michigan, and its sovereign citizens - not special interests, lobbyists, or political parties. Our State can and should nullify any and all laws supported by our representatives in Washington which invalidate their oaths to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.
Thanks for the info. I was under the impression Michigan had fallen into the abyss but a quick search indicates at least a Pubbie majority in the State’s Senate. Not that I’m enamored with Pubbies these days but it does reveal more “diversity” within the state legislature than I had previously assumed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.