Ohio joins states declaring gun independence

Ohioans for Concealed Carry ^ | 21 October 2009 | Ohioans for Concealed Carry

[Engineer_Soldier]

Ohio has joined with several other states, including Montana and Tennessee, in asserting independence from federal gun laws with the introduction of House Bill 315. This bill, sponsored by Representatives Morgan and Martin, would make all guns manufactured wholly within the state of Ohio exempt from federal gun regulations provided sales are within state boundaries.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives has claimed that they have the authority through the right to regulate interstate commerce because even exclusive intrastate sales of guns have an effect on gun sales nationwide.

With two states already having passed similar bills, and many more being considered, this will not be an issue that can be ignored much longer and will likely head for the courts as the issue of states rights vs federal authority are ironed out.

[Engineer_Soldier]

Of course, the big government Republicans that argued against Obama not invading state sovereignty to arrest pot smokers in states that have legalized it will be angry that any state would dare defy the central government of Washington, DC.

Thank God for the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Libertarian Party.

It's time to take states' rights back from D.C!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Unfortunately Justice Kennedy along with the four liberal members of the Supreme Court won’t go along with this limitation on Federal Power, especially with so much precedence supporting Federal Power grabs, such as the decision that growing crops for use on your own farm somehow involves interstate commerce.

[r9etb]

Ohio has joined with several other states, including Montana and Tennessee, in asserting independence from federal gun laws with the introduction of House Bill 315. This bill, sponsored by Representatives Morgan and Martin, would make all guns manufactured wholly within the state of Ohio exempt from federal gun regulations provided sales are within state boundaries.

Just to cut through the spin, the mere fact of "introducing a bill" that has not passed does not constitute Ohio "joining" anything.

As for the reported provisions of the bill itself ... well, they're very cute.

[Engineer_Soldier]

Here's from another story about Michigan introducing a bill such as Ohio's:

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.

[LonePalm]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives has claimed that they have the authority through the right to regulate interstate commerce because even exclusive intrastate sales of guns have an effect on gun sales nationwide.

By that argument, they could regulate the growing of tomatoes in my garden because it has an effect on my purchase of tomatoes from Florida.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Cboldt]

-- Unfortunately Justice Kennedy along with the four liberal members of the Supreme Court won’t go along with this limitation on Federal Power ... --

I don't think any SCOTUS justice, except maybe Thomas, would accept Ohio's premise. Scalia says federal anti-pot laws are superior over contrary state law; and Scalia has validated the federal laws that regulate guns, other than the out and out ban on possession that existed in Washington, DC.

[gdani]

Ohio joins states declaring gun independence

Nope. It will never make it through the Ohio House.

[Engineer_Soldier]

I don’t think it will make it past your governor’s desk either.

[gdani]

I don’t think it will make it past your governor’s desk either.

I wouldn't bet against it. He's been endorsed by the NRA before & next year is an election year.

[EdReform]

Ping

[Lurker]

This issue is already settled law as SCOTUS has spoken.

Don't expect the BATF to admit that fact though.

[Lurker]

By that argument, they could regulate the growing of tomatoes in my garden because it has an effect on my purchase of tomatoes from Florida.

See Wickard v Filburn.

[NoObamaFightForConservatives]

most states will find if they don’t do this they won’t have anybody living there.

[Cboldt]

-- most states will find if they don't do this they won't have anybody living there. --

The state laws claiming to stand up for their citizens are nothing but sucker bait. If the states were serious, they would actually fight the feds. They don't, and won't.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2270898/posts?page=11#11

[Montana] Law as proposed and REJECTED:

Section 7. Duties of the attorney general.
(1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.
(2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.

Think the feds aren't deadly serious? Think again. See Waco, Ruby Ridge, and probably hundreds of lesser-know cases. (Stewart, Hamblen come to mind)

[LonePalm]

I plead the 2^nd Amendment.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Buckeye McFrog]

there is a precedent....back in the mid-1800’s
(I don’t recall the exact year or case) the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Indiana could not export galvanized buckets manufactured in their prison to other states. A group of bucket manufacturers sued claiming that since Indiana did not pay for the labor they would be put out of business. The decision however DID grant Indiana the authority to continue to sell prison-made buckets within the State of Indiana.

So, Madame Wise Latina....stick THAT in your Stare Decisis and smoke it!

Maybe I should move back to Ohio and become a gunsmith?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

With the Twentieth Century being an almost continuous expansion of Federal Power, approved by the Supreme Court, I doubt that a ruling from the nineteenth century would now be considered a relevant precedent.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks EdReform!

I took a quick look to see where the discussion was going and all I would add is that the SCOTUS, BATFE, and many feral government toadys had best mind their manners. The States are coming and no amount of catterwalling or screeching from the federales will amount to a f*rt in a stiff breeze if The States decide to get in the game. Right, wrong or otherwise, that's the way I see it.

Ohio Get Your Guns!

Click the 10th Amendment button for articles tagged "10thamendment". A "statesrights" link is atop the forum page.

Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.

I've stopped monitoring 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
Firearms Freedom Act

CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“By that argument, they could regulate the growing of tomatoes in my garden because it has an effect on my purchase of tomatoes from Florida.”

Exactly! Heck they could extend this ludicrous reasoning to say Texas mustn’t grow citrus because it affects California and Florida!

[Engineer_Soldier]

Especially since the states control their National Guards for this very reason. I’m a full time soldier and I know for sure that my brothers and I will never fight against the Constitution, or any National Guard unit that’s defending the Constitution. We took an oath to defend the Constitution, not the government.

[LearsFool]

It's time to take states' rights back from D.C!

States' jurisdiction is a better expression, in my opinion. It lays out the argument very simply, in terms everyone can quickly grasp, and without any legacy baggage from our nation's history.

Outstanding news about Ohio! Thanks for the post.

[MrB]

Nobody PRODUCTIVE, you mean.

This is one of the reasons the leftist/elitists don’t want us to be able to avoid their control and their programs.

They know that if it’s done at the state level, the producers all move to the “free” states and the moochers all move to the socialist states.

[ForGod'sSake]

The States have a very large hammer as parties to the agreement that is our Constitution. Borrowing from a a Bill Cosbyism: The States brought you into this world; The States can take you out!

[MrB]

And, it is an absolutely ridiculous assumption that the contract that brought the federal government into existance

intended for the created entity and “opposite” party to that contract would have sole “interpretation” power over that contract.

[KarlInOhio]

Maybe the decendents of Roscoe Filburn can set up a gun factory and test whether purely intrastate commerce can be controlled by the federales.

Wickard v. Filburn

[ForGod'sSake]

And, it is an absolutely ridiculous assumption that the contract that brought the federal government into existance intended for the created entity and “opposite” party to that contract would have sole “interpretation” power over that contract.

And yet that is essentially how the Constitution lays it out. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of Constititional questions. I am not a student of the Federalist Papers but I'd bet there was a lot of discussion of this very issue in them. How it was reconciled is a mystery to me but I have to believe the Founders must have felt The States retained enough power to resist any encroachments by the SCOTUS. In the final analysis, The States WILL have the last word if they choose to exercise it. That's where We The People come in. We have GOT to light a fire under our State representatives.

BTW, have you seen this related THREAD? Excellent discussion.

[MrB]

From my recollection,
the founders considered the Judiciary to be the

WEAKEST

of the three branches. This is probably why they didn’t put as many restraints on it. It’s hard to see it from their point of view now, though.

[MrB]

Found it - Federalist 78:

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two . . . that . . . the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean, so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments . . . and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

Antifederalist 78-79 (at the same link) states that
"The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control"

Guess who was right...

[CodeToad]

Yeah Ohio!

[ForGod'sSake]

From my recollection, the founders considered the Judiciary to be the WEAKEST of the three branches. This is probably why they didn’t put as many restraints on it. It’s hard to see it from their point of view now, though.

Agreed, but looking at the, well, architecture, or available resources, where else could the Founders have placed this single question but with what was perceived as the weakest feral body? If I understand the theory, the design was for the three feral branches to keep each other in check. Was/is there a weakness in the theory? Possibly, but I'm not smart enough to parse this sort of thing. Still in all, I have to believe the Founders felt The States, hence The People, had enough retained power to take 'em all to the woodshed if push came to shove.

[ForGod'sSake]

Good discussion but I don't see anything in there suggesting an alternative to SCOTUS being the final arbiter. IOW, final decisions had to rest somewhere, where might the best place be? There is the observation that The People have the last word. It follows, in my mind at least, that The States, being the governing body nearest to The People could theoretically stand in the breach on our behalf. THAT could become a bit tricky though. This discussion also adds more impetus to the notion that the Founders had it right when they established that senators, the body that approves feral judges, should be appointed by their respective States.

The addition of the 17th Amendment is looking more onerous every day.

[MrB]

Impeachment is in there as a check on the SCOTUS,
but it was tried once, failed, and never tried again.

[ForGod'sSake]

Impeachment is in there as a check on the SCOTUS, but it was tried once, failed, and never tried again.

I think one of the key phrases from your previous link is so long as the SCOTUS remains unaligned with the executive or legislative branches, The People would have nothing to fear from the judiciary. The dims have been working on essentially "packing" the courts for decades. In addition that, establishing unconstitutional precedents to fit their distorted sensibilities. Gotta go check in on Beck.

[MrB]

Yeah, I caught that too, but I forgot about it when I found the anti-federalist citation.

The SCOTUS being “aligned” with the other branches is just what they are doing when they essentially make law from the bench, as in RvW.

[guitarplayer1953]

Shsssss please I don't want the fed tomato police coming to my house don't give them any ideas.

[2harddrive]

I can tell you after reading that bill - that it DOES NOT apply to shotguns! They made a technical error - see the Exemptions section on the number of projectiles per trigger pull!

[Pontiac]

Ohio’s Leftist Governor will never sign such a bill anyway.

[HiramQuick]

You know the difference between The liberal dem gubenor strickland and the ex republican gubenor Taft? Absolutely NOTHING!..... other than taft carried the burden of being a self taught moron.

Taft vetoed anything that was supportive of the 2nd ammendment. He like those other Great (dripping azz sarcasm)Ohio RINOS like voniobitch deawhiner, kasich .. all hate guns in the publics hands. The only reason we got ccw is that the votes were present, Taft could not veto it. Same thing later with Strickland with the Castle doctrine. It passed through as well.

[WKUHilltopper]

Way to go Ohio! Where the hell is Kentucky??

[annieokie]

bump for later read