The Ruthless Truth blog

Virginia joins states in anti-federal government bills

By Paige Winfield Cunningham on March 8, 2010
Print This Post

Virginia delegates are shaking their fists at the federal government by adding to a crop of anti-government legislation sprouting around the country.

A bill aiming to duck out of federal healthcare reform has been approved by Virginia’s general assembly, while similar legislation has been filed in at least 30 other states, according to the Washington-based nonprofit American Legislative Exchange Council. The Virginia House and Senate, along with Gov. Bob McDonnell, are poised this week to approve a final version of the bill, which says citizens cannot be required to have medical insurance.

But that’s not the extent of the anti-federal initiatives. Dozens of states are trying to assert independence from the U.S. government by resisting regulation of firearms, commerce and currency.

Supporters of the bills say they’re defending states’ rights under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves those powers not expressly granted to the federal government for the states.

The Virginia House has approved bills aimed at protecting firearms and commerce within the state.

Sponsored by Del. Bill Carrico, R-Independence, the Firearm Freedom Act “protects firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept in Virginia from federal regulation.” According to legislative aid Stewart Higley, Carrico wrote the legislation after being contacted by Gary Marbut—a Montana activist who is encouraging states to follow the lead of his own state.

Marbut helped to write a parallel act in Montana, which was signed by the Democratic governor last year and became law on October 1. That same day, Marbut filed a federal lawsuit—with the help of six attorneys working pro bono—to challenge all federal regulation of firearms that remain within state lines.

The lifelong gun owner said he’s wanted to challenge the federal government’s power for a long time and intends to take his case all the way to the top, if he’s able.

“We want to get to the Supreme Court,” Marbut said. “We want the Supreme Court to overturn a half-century of precedent. But we’re not kidding ourselves; it’s going to be an uphill climb.”

Marbut says his work is “plowing the ground” for similar laws to spread through the U.S. Since Montana’s success, Tennessee and Utah have followed suit and only a governor’s signature is needed in Wyoming and South Dakota—which approved its bill on Thursday. Eighteen other states have introduced the legislation according to Marbut.

In Virginia, the bill passed the House 70-29. Its main idea—to resist federal control of goods produced in-state—is shared by another bill patroned by Del. Mark Cole, R-Spotsylvania. Cole’s bill states that the 10th Amendment gives Virginia freedom from federal regulation of goods “manufactured in, sold in and consumed in Virginia.”

Cole said he wrote the bill out of a concern that the federal government is overstepping its constitutional boundaries. He said he’s received support for the bill that he thinks is prompted by citizens’ worries about federal spending and nationalized healthcare. States need to start responding to the concerns, he said.

“Over the years, the federal courts and Congress have expanded their reach and authority to the extent where the 10th Amendment is essentially meaningless,” Cole said. “I think states need to start looking at that and start coming up with plans to reassert themselves.”

But Cole agrees the legislation raises constitutional issues. Both his bill and the Firearms Freedom Act were given a “grey” cover by the Virginia Division of Legislative Services, indicating that there’s a good chance they could be unconstitutional.

While a grey cover isn’t automatic death to a bill, it does mean that the drafter, an attorney and the director all agree that it’s constitutionally dubious, said Deputy Director Bill Cramme. Bills that receive the grey cover usually carry a constitutional challenge that would have to be based on a court ruling, he said. He said it’s rare that grey cover bills become law, but he does see it happen occasionally.

But this year’s anti-federal legislation is the most he has ever seen, Cramme said. It’s the first time in the same year he’s seen legislators push a several bills resisting federal power.

“This is the first year I’ve seen a group of these come through,” Cramme said. “It’s kind of unusual, seems like it’s bubbled up finally.”

While the chiefly Democratic opposition wasn’t enough to halt the bills in the Republican-controlled House, they would face tough resistance if given a hearing in the Democrat-led Senate.

Like Virginia, other states are passing their own anti-federal measures.

In Idaho, there’s an effort to gain control of currency. Republicans have introduced a measure to allow the use of gold and silver in addition to dollars issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. State legislators are also considering bills that would preempt federal identification legislation that could affect state driver’s licenses, challenge control of federally-held land and call for the national debt to be eliminated in 55 years.

Cole introduced a similar resolution in Virginia, calling for the U.S. to balance its budget, but he said the bill is stalled in committee after being passed by the House.

On Wednesday, Wyoming joined nine other states whose legislatives chambers have passed a resolution that simply affirms the sovereignty of states under the 10th Amendment. In the past year, Alabama, Utah, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho, Louisiana and Tennessee have all passed similar resolutions, according to the Tenth Amendment Center—a Washington-based nonprofit that advocates for limited government.

The outcrop of anti-federal government bills is akin to states trying to secede from the union during Civil War times—but this time in the area of public policy, said A. Lee Fritschler, a professor at George Mason University’s School of Public Policy. But he believes supporters will likely just end up butting their heads against decades of court precedent that favors federal over state authority.

And, practically speaking, no one would really want to produce or buy goods that don’t meet federal safety regulations, Fritschler said. He said that producers prefer one national regulation instead of state-by-state regulation, while consumers want to be assured that products are safe.

“It’s a statement of protest, and it’s interesting in that respect, but pragmatically one would think it’s not going to go very far,” Fritschler said. “When people get down to it and try to implement it and try to live with it…it could be really quite damaging.”

Virginia joins states in anti-federal government bills

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The Ayes have it:
AYES: 35 NAYS: 23 NOT VOTING: 2

The first reading already took place in the Arizona Senate on the February 25th. The proposed legislation confronts the position taken by most members of Congress that the “Commerce Clause”, found in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, gives them nearly unlimited power to regulate anything which even remotely affects interstate commerce. Either one of these bills would challenge that claim, by exempting guns manufactured in Arizona from federal regulation, as long as they are stamped “Made in Arizona” and do not leave the state.

The House bill is sponsored by many legislators who also sponsored Arizona’s Health Care Freedom Amendment (HCR 2014), and its Sovereignty Resolution (HCR 2001). Sadly, only Republican legislators in Arizona seem to have any interest in federalism at this time.

The legislative findings contained in both bills assert Arizona’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and the people’s unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment. They also emphasize the fact that when Arizona entered the union in 1912, its people did so as part of a contract between the state and the people of Arizona and the United States.

It is very likely that a Firearms Freedom bill will pass both houses and be signed by Governor Brewer into law. This will add Arizona to the list of states like Montana, Tennessee and Utah that are arresting the evil of Congressional Commerce Clause Abuse (CCCA) by nullifying unconstitutional federal laws.

CLICK HERE – To view the Arizona Firearms Freedom Act (HB 2307)

CLICK HERE – To get email updates!

CLICK HERE – To Subscribe!

Derek J. Sheriff is an ex-Green Beret turned liberty activist and the State Chapter Coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center. His blog and podcast "Principles of ‘98" can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com

http://arizona.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/arizona-firearms-freedom-act-hb-2307-passes-the-house/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Even before recent health care nullification efforts, writers at the Tenth Amendment Center were calling for a federalism-driven debate on standard liberal issues like gay marriage, REAL ID, and medical marijuana. Finally, it seems, someone on the Left has recognized the wisdom of that strategy.

I almost fell out of my chair this morning upon reading a post on the popular progressive blog FireDogLake:

…progressives need to support the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act.

Protecting Americans from corporatist greed and influence should be at the heart of what we are about.

And– it helped get Obama elected– no mandates. period. And no nut job at Aetna or in the government should keep you from spending your own money on legal health care.

Supporters have been accused of “nullification” — a not subtle claim that somehow if these efforts succeed, and are contrary to federal health care law (in both House and Senate versions), supporters seek a pre-civil war mentality.

And, of course, there is federal supremacy– so the efforts are futile.

But, what of DOMA? Aren’t Progressives in favor of same sex marriage via state efforts the same? Umm, yes.

But what of federal drug laws? Aren’t Progressives in favor of liberal medical marijuana state laws the same? Umm, yes.

But what of the right to die laws like in Oregon? The SCOTUS has actually decided IN FAVOR of Oregon in this state’s rights case… even though there are federal laws against it.

Progressives must be consistent intellectually— especially when conservatives are not. [emphasis added]

Support the Health Care Freedom Act in Arizona and around the country.

It is hard to overstate the significance of this point. If the Left as well as the Right can start to see that decentralization of power through federalism is the answer to intractable partisan gridlock and divisive culture wars, the tenthers can join forces with those on both sides who only desire more freedom and prosperity.

And then Washington’s corrupt, corporatist, top-down power structure will really be in trouble.

Josh is a proud "tenther", freelance writer, and activist originally from the Washington, D.C. area. Josh is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/intellectual-consistency-on-the-left-now-thats-what-i-call-progress/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Michael Boldin

Wyoming Bill Seeks to Combat Federal Distortions of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment – Includes Penalties of up to Two Years in Prison for Federal Agents Violating the Law.

Wyoming State Representative Allen Jaggi has introduced a “Firearms Freedom Act” (FFA) for the state – it’s filed as House Bill 95 (HB95).

While the FFA’s title focuses on gun regulations, it has far more to do with the federal violations of the commerce clause, which D.C. has used as an excuse to prohibit and regulate everything from wheat, to marijuana to guns.

If passed, the will would provide “that specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be exempt from federal regulation, including registration requirements”

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 other activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Wyoming joins 21 other states considering similar legislation – including New Hampshire, Virginia and Missouri.

In 2009, Tennessee and Montana passed a version of the Firearms Freedom Act into law. The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MTSSA) and the 2nd Amendment Foundation (SAF) have filed a federal lawsuit to validate the principles of the law.

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.

But nullification is more than just a mere rhetorical statement or a resolution affirming the position of the legislature. To effectively nullify a federal law requires state action to prevent federal enforcement within the state.

INTERPOSITION

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said:

“The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist”

Here Madison and Webster assert what is implied in nullification laws — that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

PENALTIES FOR FEDERAL AGENTS

HB95 includes this principle, and if passed, would impose penalties for violations of the law:

Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both.

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect to see as many as 30 states consider similar legislation in 2010.

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

CLICK HERE – Firearms Freedom Act Talking Points from the Tenth Amendment Center.
(tri-fold brochure, printable in color or b/w, pdf format)

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/09/wyoming-firearms-freedom-act-with-teeth/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Michael Boldin

Around the country, twenty two states are currently considering a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.

Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.

NULLIFYING GUN REGISTRATIONS

Introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly this week is House Bill 4509 (H4509), which if passed, would make law that “no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.”

No caveat for regulations under the commerce clause. No caveat for types of firearms either. This bill says NO to all gun registrations – period.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts:

“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”

and

“where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”

In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, 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 that state is concerned.

But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government.

INTERPOSITION

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

H4509 includes strong language to assert this principle:

Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people

(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.

(C) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection (B) is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that have effectively nullified federal laws around the country. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana. And, two dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today.

Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.

The final goal? It’s a long way off – a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Legislative Tracking Page for Current Nullification Efforts

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/05/raising-the-bar-for-nullification/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites