The Ruthless Truth blog

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

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA.

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

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/eight-and-counting-parnell-signs-alaska-firearms-freedom-act/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Derek Sheriff

Let’s shed some light on why Arizona’s Governor just vetoed a great piece of Tenth Amendment legislation.

Popularly known as the “Light Bulb Bill”, HB2337 was recently submitted to Governor Brewer. This bill seemed to be exactly the kind of Tenth Amendment legislation she would enthusiastically support. Surprisingly, however, she announced that she had vetoed the bill for practical and strategic reasons. In her veto letter, she explained:

Despite any federal restrictions to the contrary, the bill would have allowed the possession, use, manufacture, purchase, installation, sale or exportation internationally of incandescent light bulbs manufactured in Arizona from Arizona raw materials and components.

While I have vetoed HB 2337, I share the bill’s underlying sentiment. The federal government continually infringes on the rights of States guaranteed in the United States Constitution and by over-regulating the lives of everyday Americans. As Governor, there has not been a more ardent defender of the State of Arizona’s 10TH Amendment rights — from suing the federal government for overreaching its constitutional authority in the recently passed federal health care legislation to signing the Firearms Freedom Act (HB 2307) into law last month.

In fact, HB 2337 was modeled in large part after HB 2307. Both bills invite lawsuits that would restore our Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited federal government based on the 10TH Amendment. I believe that the Firearms Freedom Act is the more immediate and practical vehicle for achieving this objective. The federal phase-out of the incandescent light bulb starts next year and is completed in 2014. HB 2337 would take many more years to achieve its goal because there are no active tungsten mining or mineral processing facilities in Arizona. Tungsten is necessary to manufacture the filament in incandescent light bulbs.

Sadly, what Governor Brewer and many of the bill’s sponsors are either unaware of, or fail to understand properly, are the concepts of nullification and interposition, which were expressed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. The ideas articulated in these very important, but mostly unknown documents, later became known as The Principles of ‘98, and were invoked in almost every decade before the Civil War by states from every part of the Union in response to acts of federal usurpation.

If more people serving in our state governments familiarized themselves with the The Principles of ‘98 and the classical liberal states’ rights tradition nobody knows, they might be less concerned with provoking federal lawsuits in the hope of obtaining a favorable court ruling.

Lawsuits and court battles can be part of a state’s overall strategy to arrest acts of federal usurpation and keep them from multiplying, but they are not essential. While favorable court rulings are welcome, even Supreme Court decisions should not be accepted as legitimate by state governments if such decisions uphold “laws” that clearly would have been rejected by the Constitution’s ratifiers.

Just like Thomas Jefferson, our elected state officials need to finally and permenantly reject the historical and legal fiction that the US Supreme Court is the final authority on constitutional issues.

As founder and director of the Tenth Amendment Center, Michael Boldin, wrote in a recent press release:

“The greatest problem with relying on lawsuits..for Constitutional protection is the reality that the Supreme Court has set years and years of bad precedent, allowing the federal government to control many aspects of our lives that the Founders and Ratifiers never authorized. The real question we must ask is this:

Does the Constitution mean what the founders [and Ratifiers] said it means, or does it mean what the Supreme Court says it means…until it changes its mind?

Like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today the same as they meant the moment it was ratified. The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have not been amended, and the original Constitutional meanings of those clauses do not permit the federal government to exercise such powers.”

Given the fact that the Supreme Court is part of the federal government and can no more be an impartial arbiter of constitutional disputes between the states and the federal government than the legislative or executive branch could be, I have a question.

Do we live in a republic where the Constitution, which has a fixed and knowable meaning, is the supreme law of the land? Or do we live in a judicial oligarchy where we are governed by case law, which changes from decade to decade according to the shifting opinions of nine unelected, unaccountable judges?

If the latter is the case, then our system of government resembles more closely that of Iran, where ultimate sovereignty resides with Islamic jurists, than the one established by the Constitution’s framers and ratifiers.

But if the former is the case, then states, and not the Supreme Court exclusively, have the moral and legal authority to decide when Congress has violated the Constitution. And the people of the several states, supported and defended by their state governments, have every natural and legal right to ignore or refuse to obey what Congress may attempt to call a “law” in cases where it has overstepped its constitutional boundaries.

Some will assert that this could lead to irregularity and legal chaos around the country. I contend that we are already faced with a far worse situation: institutionalized lawlessness and nationalized tyranny.

Get the Book Today!

Whether it’s over issues concerning mandatory health insurance, firearms manufactured and kept within state boundaries or a federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, our state and local officials must take a more realistic and enlightened approach: Stop asking the federal courts for permission to protect their citizen’s constitutional rights and just do it. It is their responsibility and their duty to interpose on our behalf whether any branch of the federal government likes it or not.

Derek J. Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center. His blog and podcast “Principles of ‘98″ can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com

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/2010/05/31/a-bright-idea-less-litigation-and-more-interposition/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

145th General Assembly
House Bill # 353

Primary Sponsor:
Hudson
Additional Sponsor(s):    Rep. Cathcart & Rep. Briggs King & Rep. Hocker & Rep. Lavelle & Sen. Simpson

CoSponsors:
Reps. D. Short, Carey, Kovach, Lee, Oberle, Outten, Ramone, Wilson; Sen. Bonini

Introduced on :
03/30/2010

Long Title:
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 16 AND TITLE 29 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO HEALTH AND SAFETY AND DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Synopsis:
This bill, a.k.a. the Delaware Health Care Freedom Act, clarifies that only the State of Delaware has the legal authority to regulate private healthcare insurance, systems, plans, and services within its borders. The bill specifies and guarantees that Delawareans are, and shall be, free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty. The bill further expands the duties of the state attorney general to defend the State of Delaware, its officials, employees, and agents in the event that any law or regulation violating the public policy set forth in the Delaware Health Care Freedom Act is enacted by any government, subdivision, or agency thereof. The enactment of this legislation would not interfere with the ongoing implementation of the healthcare aspects of any existing government program where Delawareans have agreed to take part and which do not carry penalties for non-participation.

Current Status:
House House Administration Committee   On  03/30/2010

Full text of Legislation:
(in HTML format)
Legis.html
Email this Bill to a friend

Full text of Legislation:
(in MS Word format)
Legis.Doc (You need Microsoft Word to see this document.)

Actions History:

Mar 30, 2010 – Introduced in House and assigned to House Administration Committee
Mar 30, 2010 – Assigned to House Administration Committee in House

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Today Wyoming became the latest state to enact a Firearms Freedom act, following close on the heels of South Dakota where the governor signed a similar act last week. Oklahoma’s version has passed both houses of its legislature with large majorities and is expected to be signed soon. Five other states have already passed similar acts and 24 more have acts pending or ready to be introduced.

These acts declare that the federal government has no jurisdiction to regulate the manufacture and sales of firearms or ammunition within a state, so long as those activities do not cross state lines, causing them to enter federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The Wyoming law includes a $2000 fine and a year in prison for any federal official attempting to interfere with gun rights under the law within the state.

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has disputed the validity of these laws on the basis that they are in conflict with federal firearms laws, asserting that federal regulations supersede state law even if the activities are kept within the state.

The Montana version of the FFA is being tested in federal court. If it is upheld as constitutional these laws may be the first step in the efforts of many state governments to reassert control over areas of governance where authority has been ceded to the federal government over the years. If the law is struck down as unconstitutional other states plan to also file suit over the issue.

If these firearms freedom laws succeed many states have similar legislation pending to assert other rights under the 10th Amendment with the ultimate goal of challenging the ability of the federal government to impose unfunded mandates and unpopular programs on the states against their will.

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/wyoming-and-south-dakota-declare-firearms/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

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