8th state says guns beyond feds' control

[Shadow]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=159485

Interesting....

Read More

 

[MrNiceGuy]

That website is a breeding ground for spyware and trojans.
I wouldnt suggest anyone click that link.
So i've copy/pasted the article.

REBELLION IN AMERICA
8th state says guns beyond feds' control
Alaska governor signs Firearms Freedom Act into law
Posted: May 28, 2010
12:45 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Handguns from Freedom Arms in Wyoming

Alaska has become the eighth state to declare that firearms made, sold and owned in the state are beyond the reach of the federal bureaucrats along the Potomac, with Gov. Sean Parnell's signature on the plan today.

"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," said Rep. Mike Kelly, the lead sponsor on theplan endorsed by lawmakers in the recently closed session of the Alaska Legislature.

"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.

"Outdoorsmen, hunters and all Alaskans defending and feeding their families, and protecting their property, should welcome this new law," he said.

Here are answers to all your questions about guns, ammunition and accessories.

The law also requires the state to defend any Alaskan who is "prosecuted by the federal government under their authority to regulate interstate commerce."

"We welcome Alaska into this states' rights liberty march," said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

He's been called the godfather of the movement for his work on the original state Firearms Freedom Act that took effect last year in Montana.

"Since Alaska, like Montana and Idaho with enacted Firearms Freedom Acts, is in the Ninth Circuit, this should help demonstrate to the Ninth when we get there with our lawsuit that the states of the Ninth Circuit area are serious about states' rights," Marbut said.



The federal government has called the move reason in and of itself for federal courts to strike down the state laws that now have been adopted in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Tennessee and Arizona.

In its court filings in Montana – the first state to adopt such provisions and the site of a court battle over its validity – thefederal government has argued that since eight states have enacted their own firearms regulations and another 21 are considering similar plans, that "would have an indisputable effect on interstate commerce."

The brief, posted on the Firearms Freedom Act website, said the Commerce Clause of the Constitution should be the foundation for the court ruling, even though supporters of the states' rights movement have noted that the Second Amendment and Tenth Amendment were adopted later, and presumably could be read to have modified the Commerce Clause.

Montana statehouse

Lawmakers in Montana who voted for the original plan have argued in the court case, "There is nothing in the MFFA that should offend the powers of the national government."

And they contend the Constitution's supremacy clause has no impact because "only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution constitute the supreme law of the land."

Montana's original plan is called "An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana."

The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.

Lawmakers in Montana actually took the dispute to the feds. They argued, "Should Congress enact a law that appears to conflict with the guidance in the [Montana Firearms Freedom Act], the courts may then determine whether Congress has acted within the scope of its delegated powers as limited by later amendments. ... The courts may then determine the extent to which Congress' enactment has abrogatedthe state's exercise of power within the same sphere."

The lawsuit was brought against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont.

It seeks a declaration that the federal government must stay out of the way of Montana's management of its own firearms.

According to the Firearms Freedom Act website, such laws are "primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the 'commerce clause,' with firearms as the object – it is a states' rights exercise."

When South Dakota's law was signed by Gov. Mike Rounds, a commentator said it addresses the "rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by thefederal government for decades."

Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said Washington likely is looking for a way out of the dispute.

"I think they're going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case," he told WND earlier. "When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws."

WND reported when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation. Officials there took the unusual step of including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm."

The costs could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender.​

 

[ZachS]

I feel bad for the first person who decides to be a test case for one of these laws.

 

[Trlsmn]

I feel bad for the first person who decides to be a test case for one of these laws.

I'm always happy to support people that want to be the test case. As for myself I'll just watch from the sidelines.

I found this interesting though:

"The law also requires the state to defend any Alaskan who is "prosecuted by the federal government under their authority to regulate interstate commerce."

 

[taylor]

Do any of those states other than montana and wyoming manufacture any firearms.

 

[ZachS]

I'm always happy to support people that want to be the test case. As for myself I'll just watch from the sidelines.

I found this interesting though:

"The law also requires the state to defend any Alaskan who is "prosecuted by the federal government under their authority to regulate interstate commerce."

That's pretty cool, but I think that a federal public defender would be able to beg for leniency at sentencing just as well as whoever the state hires - if not better...

 

[Trlsmn]

Do any of those states other than montana and wyoming manufacture any firearms.

It wouldn't take much for job shop to buy 80% AR15 forgings and mill then in any state with such laws.

That's pretty cool, but I think that a federal public defender would be able to plead for leniency at sentencing just as well as whoever the state hires...

Yes thus my statement about watching from the sidelines. In deals like this even a winner loses to a certain extent.

I do like the clause about prosecuting the prosecutors:

"WND reported when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation. Officials there took the unusual step of including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm."

The costs could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender. "

 

[nixuser]

re: That website is a breeding ground for spyware and trojans.
I wouldnt suggest anyone click that link.
So i've copy/pasted the article.

well you windose user,s better stay off that site but us linux operating system users can go there with out any fear !!

 

[8ball]

Every legal analysis I've seen, even from pro-2A lawyers, shows that the various Firearm Freedom Acts will not stand up in court. That's why the NRA is not supporting it, and I was surprised to see Alan Gottlieb of SAF quoted as a supporter.

Montana Shooting Sports filed a suit last year as a test case and the feds have already responded in court so we'll probably know by the end of this year.

There have been a couple of state governors who have refused to sign the FFA for this reason. I'll also point out that having the state bear the cost of defending your federal lawsuit doesn't help much if the court still finds you guilty and you end up in the federal pen for twenty years!

Personally I think bills like the FFA are just a convenient way for any politician to say 'Look, I supported your Second Amendment rights' while knowing that it will never be implemented as written. I don't understand why so much effort goes into something which looks to be doomed from the outset.

Causes like Heller and McDonald v Chicago are 100x more relevant to Second Amendment rights than the Firearms Freedom Act.

 

[ZachS]

Every legal analysis I've seen, even from pro-2A lawyers, shows that the various Firearm Freedom Acts will not stand up in court. That's why the NRA is not supporting it, and I was surprised to see Alan Gottlieb of SAF quoted as a supporter.

Exactly. Even though libertarians and other "states' rights" advocates disapprove of it, the relevant law is straightforward and well-settled. Despite its age, this case represents the law of the land. Congress can regulate any production, purchase, or sale of goods that are traded in interstate commerce. (In the case of firearms, Congress' power is still limited by the 2nd Amendment - but we are unlikely to ever see a court decision prohibiting regulations like the ones that currently exist.)

 

[snew]

Exactly. Even though libertarians and other "states' rights" advocates disapprove of it, the relevant law is straightforward and well-settled. Despite its age, this case represents the law of the land. Congress can regulate any production, purchase, or sale of goods that are traded in interstate commerce. (In the case of firearms, Congress' power is still limited by the 2nd Amendment - but we are unlikely to ever see a court decision prohibiting regulations like the ones that currently exist.)

Read it again. The crux of what they're saying is that they're not traded in interstate commerce. What's made in Alaska, traded in Alaska, and used in Alaska is none of your business so back off.

That's what I read anyway.

 

[toobigtofail]

States can declare what they want to declare -- when push comes to shove, the Feds will decide what's up. I don't like this, but it is the truth. The Feds decided a long time ago that if states wanted money for highways, they'd have to toe the line on the 21 years old drinking age. All of the states fell in line -- it was that, or fund highways on their own. Same will happen with gun rights.

 

[ZachS]

Read it again. The crux of what they're saying is that they're not traded in interstate commerce. What's made in Alaska, traded in Alaska, and used in Alaska is none of your business so back off.

That's what I read anyway.

Read in the Alaska law, or read in Wickard v. Filburn (the case I linked to above)?

In Wickard, the Supreme Court ruled that wheat grown on a farm in one state for the farmer's personal consumption affects interstate commerce and is subject to federal regulation because it affects (or potentially affects) the amount of wheat imported from other states. There was a similar case about medicinal marijuana a few years ago that says the same thing, and relates directly to a state law that tries to preempt federal regulation.

Likewise, guns produced in one state for its residents' personal use affect the number of guns imported from other states. On top of that, it's probably impossible to manufacture a gun in one state without importing parts or (at least) raw materials from another state. In other contexts, that alone is usually considered a sufficient connection to interstate commerce to allow federal regulation.

As I said, lots of people hate this law. It's still the law, though, and it's not likely to change enough to affect these preemption statutes anytime soon.

States can declare what they want to declare -- when push comes to shove, the Feds will decide what's up. I don't like this, but it is the truth. The Feds decided a long time ago that if states wanted money for highways, they'd have to toe the line on the 21 years old drinking age. All of the states fell in line -- it was that, or fund highways on their own. Same will happen with gun rights.

Exactly. In situations where the federal government can't apply the commerce clause (or one of the other more specific Constitutional clauses allowing it to regulate state behavior), it can still assert its power through other means. That won't be necessary here, though, because current commerce clause doctrine clearly allows for firearms regulations. (Again, still subject to the 2nd Amendment)

 

[zeezee]

Only 8? So sad.

 

[CEF1959]

States can declare what they want to declare -- when push comes to shove, the Feds will decide what's up.

Agreed. These are purely symbolic moves. One point of view is that they are making a political point that needs to be made, albeit without effect. Another is that these are just politicians casting for votes and cynically raising the hopes folks who don't understand the relationship between state and federal government. But I hope folks don't really see these legislative initiatives as having actual legal effect. Try producing a selective-fire weapon in your state and claiming it's not subject to federal restrictions, and you'll be in a world of hurt.

 

[8ball]

Another is that these are just politicians casting for votes and cynically raising the hopes folks who don't understand the relationship between state and federal government.

+1

In a way it reminds me of tax protestors and their wild theories on admiralty flags and sovereign citizenship. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Just think if all that energy could be harnessed for something useful...

 

[PMKN_PI]

States can declare what they want to declare -- when push comes to shove, the Feds will decide what's up. .

Let them try.

 

[zeezee]

States can declare what they want to declare -- when push comes to shove, the Feds will decide what's up. I don't like this, but it is the truth. The Feds decided a long time ago that if states wanted money for highways, they'd have to toe the line on the 21 years old drinking age. All of the states fell in line -- it was that, or fund highways on their own. Same will happen with gun rights.

I don't believe that communist/socialist nonsense for a minute. Our Constitution was set up so that the states had the final saying in what was happening in their state and the feds have no right in saying other wise. We need to limit the powers of the feds and allow the states to take care of them selves. The federal government is too f'n big, as Reagan said, government is the problem. Read Amendment X of OUR Constitution.

 

[ZachS]

+1

In a way it reminds me of tax protestors and their wild theories on admiralty flags and sovereign citizenship. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Just think if all that energy could be harnessed for something useful...

It is to the extent that people believe that the preemption statutes are currently valid. Otherwise, there's a big difference: the states' rights/antifederalist view has plenty of supporters among scholars and even federal judges. It's still very much a minority view, and is likely to remain so, but it's not a made-up conspiracy theory.

Even though I'm comfortable (in many respects, but not all) with a strong federal government, I think that even the most ardent supporters of federal power would not like a USA where nobody tried to rein it in occasionally. The "sound and fury" is a big part of what balances the scales out at least a little bit.

 

[zeezee]

It is to the extent that people believe that the preemption statutes are currently valid. Otherwise, there's a big difference: the states' rights/antifederalist view has plenty of supporters among scholars and even federal judges. It's still very much a minority view, and is likely to remain so, but it's not a made-up conspiracy theory.

Even though I'm comfortable (in many respects, but not all) with a strong federal government, I think that even the most ardent supporters of federal power would not like a USA where nobody tried to rein it in occasionally. The "sound and fury" is a big part of what balances the scales out at least a little bit.

Strong federal government? How about a government of the people, by the people and for the people, limit all government intrusion into our daily lives. Like is written in Amendment X of the US Constitution.