question about the idaho firearm freedom act

[bunkerguy]

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Sixtieth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE BILL NO. 589
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
1 AN ACT
2 RELATING TO FIREARMS MANUFACTURED IN IDAHO; TO PROVIDE A SHORT TITLE;
3 TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE INTENT; AMENDING CHAPTER 33, TITLE 18, IDAHO
4 CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 183315A,
IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE
5 PROHIBITIONS ON REGULATION OF CERTAIN FIREARMS, FIREARM ACCESSORIES
6 OR AMMUNITION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS, TO
7 PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR MARKETING OF FIREARMS IN IDAHO, TO PROVIDE
8 APPLICABILITY AND TO PROVIDE DUTIES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE
9 COUNCIL; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY.
10 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
11 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This act may be cited as the "Idaho Firearms
12 Freedom Act."
13 SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. The Legislature declares that the
14 authority for this act is the following:
15 (1) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to
16 the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government
17 elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Idaho
18 certain powers as they were understood at the time that Idaho was admitted
19 to statehood in 1890. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract
20 between the state and people of Idaho and the United States as of the time
21 that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Idaho
22 and the United States in 1890.
23 (2) The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees tothe people rights not granted in the Constitution and reserves to the people
25 of Idaho certain rights as they were understood at the time that Idaho was
26 admitted to statehood in 1890. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of
27 contract between the state and people of Idaho and the United States as of the
28 time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by
29 Idaho and the United States in 1890.
30 (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states
31 under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
32 particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not
33 expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to
34 the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories,
35 and ammunition.
36 (4) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to
37 the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at
38 the time that Idaho was admitted to statehood in 1890, and the guaranty of
39 the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Idaho and
40 the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was
41 agreed upon and adopted by Idaho and the United States in 1890.
2
1 (5) Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho
2 clearly secures to Idaho citizens, and prohibits government interference
3 with, the right of individual Idaho citizens to keep and bear arms. This
4 constitutional protection in the Idaho Constitution, which was approved by
5 Congress and the people of Idaho, and the right exists as it was understood at
6 the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted
7 by Idaho and the United States in 1890.
8 (6) In 2009, the Idaho Legislature adopted House Joint Memorial No.
9 4, which stated findings of the Legislature claiming sovereignty under the
10 Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers
11 not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the
12 Constitution.
13 (7) In enacting this law, the Idaho legislators are declaring their
14 intention of Idaho becoming the freest state in the Union.
15 SECTION 3. That Chapter 33, Title 18, Idaho Code, be, and the same is
16 hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and
17 designated as Section 183315A,
Idaho Code, and to read as follows:
18 183315A.
PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF CERTAIN FIREARMS. (1)
19 As used in this section:
20 (a) "Borders of Idaho" means the boundaries of Idaho described in
21 chapter 1, title 31, Idaho Code.
22 (b) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction
23 with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic
24 function of a firearm including, but not limited to, telescopic or laser
25 sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket
26 stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition, ammunition carriers and
27 lights for target illumination.
28 (c) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes, but is not limited to,
29 springs, screws, nuts and pins.
30 (d) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or
31 ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional
32 usefulness including, but not limited to, forging, casting, machining
33 or other processes for working materials.
34 (2) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is
35 manufactured commercially or privately in Idaho and that remains within
36 the borders of Idaho is not subject to federal law or federal regulation,
37 including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate
38 interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have
39 not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm,
40 a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured in Idaho from
41 basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any
42 significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant
43 parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not
44 firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition, and their importation into
45 Idaho and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition
46 manufactured in Idaho does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory
47 or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature
48 that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are
49 not firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition and are not subject to
3
1 congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories and
2 ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms,
3 firearms accessories or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate
4 interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to
5 regulate firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition made in Idaho
6 from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Idaho
7 from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in
8 interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under
9 interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with
10 a firearm in Idaho.
11 (3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply to:
12 (a) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one (1) person;
13 (b) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and onehalf
14 (1 1/2) inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a
15 propellant;
16 (c) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of
17 chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
18 (d) A firearm that discharges two (2) or more rounds of ammunition with
19 one (1) activation of the trigger or other firing device.
20 (4) A firearm manufactured or sold in Idaho under this section shall
21 have the words "Made in Idaho" clearly stamped on a central metallic part,
22 such as the receiver or frame.
23 (5) This section applies to firearms, firearms accessories and
24 ammunition that are manufactured as defined in subsection (1) and retained
25 in Idaho after October 1, 2010.
26 (6) The Idaho constitutional defense council is hereby empowered
27 to enter into litigation and expend moneys from the Idaho constitutional
28 defense fund or any other source to protect Idaho citizens in any legal
29 matter arising out of implementing this act or complying with the provisions
30 of this act.
31 SECTION 4. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be
32 severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such
33 provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason,
34 such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
35 this act.

question, what do this really do? what teeth does this have? has it been tested in a court of law?

Read More

 

[Varmit]

Very interesting!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act

 

[DEADTIME]

I'm so proud to call Idaho my home!

 

[fd15k]

question, what do this really do? what teeth does this have? has it been tested in a court of law?

It has no teeth, just a political theater. As Varmit stated, Montana FFA is the one to look into for background information. ATF has
issued an opinion on that one that Federal law supersedes all of its provisions, and they will continue to enforce NFA and CGA.
Initial claim was dismissed in the district court, and they filed an appeal to the 9th... 9th is currently struggling to rule that
gun shows are a protected activity, what do you think they will say in regards to machineguns ?

I'm so proud to call Idaho my home!

Right, because it's important to spend time and money on bills that don't do anything other than making you feel good and proud. Way to go Idaho!

 

[rur862]

Well I think that the Idaho bill is actually important because it again brings up some constitutional issues with regard to firearms.

Many (most if not all) firearms owners believe strongly in the right to keep and bear arms, however very few realize that the whole "FFL" requirement for dealer-individual firearm purchases is unconstitutional according to Section 1 Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution Enumerated powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution also confirms this. Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is important for states to exercise their rights in regard to unconstitutional acts on the Federal level. Perhaps one of these days some state will pass a FFA with some teeth to it, directing armed state forces to engage ATF agents who are acting illegally.

 

[fd15k]

Well I think that the Idaho bill is actually important because it again brings up some constitutional issues with regard to firearms.

Many (most if not all) firearms owners believe strongly in the right to keep and bear arms, however very few realize that the whole "FFL" requirement for dealer-individual firearm purchases is unconstitutional according to Section 1 Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution Enumerated powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution also confirms this. Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is important for states to exercise their rights in regard to unconstitutional acts on the Federal level. Perhaps one of these days some state will pass a FFA with some teeth to it, directing armed state forces to engage ATF agents who are acting illegally.

You're forgetting that reach of the Commerce Clause has been dramatically expanded over the years, thus feds do have constitutional authority to require FFL's and impose other regulations. One of the most interesting decisions regarding Commerce Clause was Gonzales v. Raich, please read on it here : Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DMax]

You're forgetting that reach of the Commerce Clause has been dramatically expanded over the years, thus feds do have constitutional authority to require FFL's and impose other regulations. One of the most interesting decisions regarding Commerce Clause was Gonzales v. Raich, please read on it here : Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And after June the Surpreme Court may have different opinion on the Commerce Clause.

 

[fd15k]

And after June the Surpreme Court may have different opinion on the Commerce Clause.

How so ? Famous dialogue comes to mind :

MR. GURA: Justice Scalia, I suppose the answer to that would be no, because -*

JUSTICE SCALIA: Then if the answer is no, why are you asking us to overrule 150, 140 years of prior law, when -- when you can reach your result under substantive due -- I mean, you know, unless you are bucking for a -- a place on some law school faculty -*

(Laughter.)

MR. GURA: No. No. I have left law school some time ago and this is not an attempt to -- to return.

JUSTICE SCALIA: What you argue is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it's also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence. Why do you want to undertake that burden instead of just arguing substantive due process, which as much as I think it's wrong, I have -- even I have acquiesced in it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

 

[pokerace]

I love it think I will be moving..

 

[DEADTIME]

I love it think I will be moving..

We have plenty of room, good hunting, cheap land, and good folks. Come join me in the great white north of Idaho.

 

[DEADTIME]

It has no teeth, just a political theater. As Varmit stated, Montana FFA is the one to look into for background information. ATF has
issued an opinion on that one that Federal law supersedes all of its provisions, and they will continue to enforce NFA and CGA.
Initial claim was dismissed in the district court, and they filed an appeal to the 9th... 9th is currently struggling to rule that
gun shows are a protected activity, what do you think they will say in regards to machineguns ?



Right, because it's important to spend time and money on bills that don't do anything other than making you feel good and proud. Way to go Idaho!

Why be so negative? Surely in this time when weak men say nothing and bad men say only what the lowest common denominator wish to hear the Idaho state legislature is standing for good and freedom which I'll gladly spend my tax money on.

 

[fd15k]

Why be so negative? Surely in this time when weak men say nothing and bad men say only what the lowest common denominator wish to hear the Idaho state legislature is standing for good and freedom which I'll gladly spend my tax money on.

Because there are ways they can be really helping, but instead they're going for pure symbolism.

 

[rur862]

You're forgetting that reach of the Commerce Clause has been dramatically expanded over the years, thus feds do have constitutional authority to require FFL's and impose other regulations. One of the most interesting decisions regarding Commerce Clause was Gonzales v. Raich, please read on it here : Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes this is certainly true, however for some of us, the original language and interpretation of the constitution is important. Take the 2nd Amendment for instance, regardless of how this is interpreted in places like California, New York, D.C. etc, it will always mean the same thing to me: that any effort to disbar the populace of arms is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[fd15k]

Yes this is certainly true, however for some of us, the original language and interpretation of the constitution is important. Take the 2nd Amendment for instance, regardless of how this is interpreted in places like California, New York, D.C. etc, it will always mean the same thing to me: that any effort to disbar the populace of arms is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, you are member of the "pick & choose" movement You also need to remember that the very Constitution you respect and value authorizes Supreme Court to interpret its meaning. You should also remember that original Constitution did not extend 2A protections to the states. And you should also remember that just 5 years after passage of the 14th Amendment half of it was invalidated (removing 2A protections from the states), yet nobody took any action. Sorry, the real world just doesn't work like some want to believe.

Here is the chronology:

1791 - Second Amendment goes in effect. It affects Federal government only.
1868 - 14th Amendment goes in effect. Second Amendment now applies to states and local governments.
1873 - Slaughterhouse cases decided. Second Amendment no longer applies to the states.
2010 - McDonald case decided. Second Amendment applies to the states and local governments.

Totals:

221 years in existence
7 years applies to the states and local governments

 

[rur862]

I certainly wouldn't choose to classify myself as a pick-and-chooser but I can understand why you might feel that way :winkkiss:

I agree with you when you say that until 1868 the 2nd Amendment affected the Federal government only.
No chance the founding fathers could have guessed at the stupidity of modern state governments.

The 14th Amendment passed after the Civil War was meant to prevent the states from infringing upon the people's civil rights (as enumerated in the Bill of Rights).

The Slaughterhouse decision is case law, and not constitutional. If it was constitutional, then the entire Privilege and Immunities clause, which was integral to the 14th, would be meaningless. States could reintroduce slavery so long as they cried police powers.

Of course they can't.

If Washington state suddenly decided to quell the voices of its citizens through the use of violence, it would be found to be an unconstitutional action because it , ..."abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
It doesn't matter if the state legislator (or more likely the governor) decides to claim "police power" or not, as was done in the Slaughterhouse case.

Thank God for the 14th and the 2nd!

Its true that the document I respect and value trusts judges to interpret the document itself, however no one could have possibly expected thuggish tyrants like FDR, who threatened to pack the court with his rubber-stamp judges if the Supreme Court did not rule his way.

 

[fd15k]

I certainly wouldn't choose to classify myself as a pick-and-chooser but I can understand why you might feel that way :winkkiss:

I was just referring to the fact that you can't claim modern benefits of the 2A and go by original meaning of the Constitution

I agree with you when you say that until 1868 the 2nd Amendment affected the Federal government only.
No chance the founding fathers could have guessed at the stupidity of modern state governments.

They were dealing with problems of their own - fear of central tyranny was their priority, and they addressed that with minimalist Bill of Rights. Mechanisms were put in place to deal with the evolution of the society later on, and we saw their use.

The 14th Amendment passed after the Civil War was meant to prevent the states from infringing upon the people's civil rights (as enumerated in the Bill of Rights).

That's right.

The Slaughterhouse decision is case law, and not constitutional. If it was constitutional, then the entire Privilege and Immunities clause, which was integral to the 14th, would be meaningless. States could reintroduce slavery so long as they cried police powers.

That's wrong. Slaughterhouse cases were decided by the Supreme Court of the United States - decisions of the Supreme Court are the de-facto standard of what's constitutional, because the Constitution itself grants such authority to that branch of the government. Your understanding of P&I and its relation to the slavery is also incorrect. P&I just establishes the national citizenship and extends the protections of individual rights throughout the nation. Slavery was abolished by 13th Amendment, and regardless of the 14th no state could restore it.

Of course they can't.

Because of what I said above

If Washington state suddenly decided to quell the voices of its citizens through the use of violence, it would be found to be an unconstitutional action because it , ..."abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

I totally lost you on this one. But I already stated above your understanding of P&I is incorrect, and since it's a void law it prompts no further discussion.

Thank God for the 14th and the 2nd!

God has nothing to do with any of this.

 

[civilian75]

I don't care if nothing comes out of it. I just love the fact Idaho grew a pair, and gave it a shot. What do you think would happen if, say, 40 something states get to pass similar legislation? Not that I see that ever happening, but, just wondering...

 

[rur862]

I agree with you on almost everything.
But,
I do not believe that just because the SC finds something constitutional means that it actually is.

The Supreme Court is comprised of human beings and is thus susceptible to politics. Their interpretation does not become law, proof of this is the many times a decision has been reversed.



Shifting the conversation away from the Second Amendment, where on earth does it say in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that the Federal government can mandate people, who want to sell firearms for a living, get an FFL?

 

[fd15k]

I don't care if nothing comes out of it. I just love the fact Idaho grew a pair, and gave it a shot. What do you think would happen if, say, 40 something states get to pass similar legislation? Not that I see that ever happening, but, just wondering...

We don't need 40 states pass laws that don't mean anything. We need Congress members from 40 states to make changes to NFA so that law-abiding citizens can purchase new machineguns again, etc.

 

[fd15k]

I agree with you on almost everything.
But,
I do not believe that just because the SC finds something constitutional means that it actually is.

My abilities at logic stall here. I can't add anything beyond what I already said - Constitution says Supreme Court is to decide what's Constitutional

The Supreme Court is comprised of human beings and is thus susceptible to politics.

Not only politics, but also to their personal perverted views. But that's how our country works. We can change that if we like - it's called Constitutional Amendment Process.

Their interpretation does not become law, proof of this is the many times a decision has been reversed.

It exactly becomes law. I'd love to see you list "many" times of decisions being reversed. I believe there have been less than 10 times in 200+ years that Supreme Court would rule to overturn its own decision. Just see the dialogue I posted above, and better yet read the entire Gura's oral argument in McDonald case, as he speaks there exactly of what you have a problem with - P&I.

Shifting the conversation away from the Second Amendment, where on earth does it say in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that the Federal government can mandate people, who want to sell firearms for a living, get an FFL?

Federal government has authority to regulate interstate commerce. That's what Commerce Clause grants them. Firearms are traded across state lines, thus firearms trade is within Federal authority - they can do whatever they want. Further, in that case Gonzales v. Raich Supreme Court found that by not participating in interstate commerce (growing weed in your backyard for personal consumption) you are affecting interstate commerce... thus you are subject to federal regulation It's retarted, I know, but it is the law.