• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Proposed resolution HCR 009 and HB 6518 (2008) against federal firearm laws.

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Feb. 25, 2009

[align=center]Michigan pushes back against proposed federal registration [/align]
[align=center]New federal law would supersede those of the States
[/align]
[align=justify]State Rep. Paul Opsommer (R-93) announced today a new bi-partisan package of resolutions that will assert Michigan’s right to bear arms under its Constitution, the supremacy of the Second Amendment over the Commerce Clause, and the will of the Michigan legislature to not recognize or enforce unconstitutional firearm restrictions placed upon its citizens. [/align]
Opsommer’s resolution, HCR 009, speaks directly to the many new federal firearm laws


[align=justify]that are being introduced. “Even though I am only a State legislator, some of these federal proposals are so egregious that you really don’t have a choice but to get involved,” said Opsommer. “They would trample over our own Constitution and firearm laws, and I don’t think we can sit idly by to just wait and see if and when these bills become law”.[/align]
[align=justify]Opsommer said he will also be reintroducing his bill HB 6518 (2008) and expanding it so that it also addresses the new agenda Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush has added to his anti-firearm’s wish list. The bill was introduced last year in reaction to coercive attempts by Mayor Bloomberg to create new video surveillance databases of gun purchases with Wal-Mart. [/align]
[align=justify]“Congressman Rush’s legislation would also call for other biometric schemes that would include the fingerprinting of law abiding citizens and a new Attorney General approved picture ID card,” said Opsommer. “We were able to halt provisions last year that could have required a new and vague national ID card in order to buy firearms, and we will do so again whether it is to register firearms, ammunition, or handloading equipment.”[/align]
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rwbuss2wiaqebxrjxclg3s55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2009-HCR-0009&query=on

Rep. Opsommer offered the following concurrent resolution:

House Concurrent Resolution No. 9.


A concurrent resolution to reaffirm the right to bear arms under the Michigan Constitution, the supremacy of the Second Amendment over the Commerce Clause, and the intent of the Michigan Legislature to not recognize or enforce unconstitutional firearm restrictions placed upon its citizens.

Whereas, Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, clearly affirms a right to bear arms. This provision prescribes that the primary purpose of the right to bear arms is not related solely to hunting but clearly allows Michigan citizen’s to be able to protect one's self, family, and possessions from the private lawlessness of other persons or potential tyranny of governments; and

Whereas, There are also federalism provisions under the United States Constitution that prohibit the federal government from interfering with the right to bear arms within Michigan. The Tenth Amendment guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the United States Constitution; and

Whereas, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides the federal government with the power to regulate commerce. However, this provision only empowers the government to regulate commerce between states and cannot be used to impose regulations onto firearms beyond this scope or that are at cross-purposes with the Second Amendment; and

Whereas, Several new federal laws have been proposed that would overstep the bounds of both the Second Amendment, Michigan’s sovereign constitution, and its firearm laws; and

Whereas, It is not the intent of the Michigan Legislature to pass laws that would mandate the use of “coded,” “serialized,” or “chipped” ammunition, to create databases of such ammunition, or to outlaw the ability of people to hand load otherwise lawful ammunition. Furthermore, it is not the intent of the Michigan Legislature to pass laws that would mandate the use of so called “smart gun” technology that wirelessly or otherwise authenticates and enables a firearm to be used by only one person. Furthermore, it is not the intent of the Michigan Legislature to allow for licensing schemes for the purchase of firearms that would mandate facial recognition, iris scans, fingerprinting, or other advanced biometric technology. Furthermore, it is not the intent of the Michigan Legislature to regulate the private transfer or sale of firearms beyond what is currently required by law. Furthermore, it is not the intent of the Michigan Legislature to pass laws that would make firearm ownership or use dependent upon the purchase of personal insurance policies or other similar risk instruments. Furthermore, it is not the intent of the Michigan Legislature to prohibit firearm ownership to individuals based upon their reporting of the past use of pain killers or other medications for surgical recovery, dental procedures, and other legitimate medical purposes. Furthermore, it is not the intent of the Michigan Legislature to pass laws that would infringe upon the ability of firearm owners to keep such weapons loaded and readily accessible within their homes, or that would allow for officials to inspect firearms within their homes without first obtaining a valid search warrant issued in conjunction with a lawful criminal investigation. It is however the intent of the Michigan Legislature to ensure that such firearm schemes are not imposed upon the citizens of Michigan by either the federal government or itself, and would view such infringements as violations of both the Second Amendment and the Michigan Constitution; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we reaffirm the right to bear arms under the Michigan Constitution, the supremacy of the Second Amendment over the Commerce Clause, and the intent of the Michigan Legislature to not recognize or enforce unconstitutional firearm restrictions placed upon its citizens.

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, members of the Michigan congressional delegation, and the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
 

Cowboy5995

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
17
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
imported post

So I need a little clarification. In the original law federal law would over rule a states law about firearms. So for example would this make SBRs and suppressors legal in Michigan?
 

SQLtables

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
894
Location
Secretary MOC, Inc. Frankenmuth, , USA
imported post

Cowboy5995 wrote:
So I need a little clarification. In the original law federal law would over rule a states law about firearms. So for example would this make SBRs and suppressors legal in Michigan?
I could be very wrong, but I'm pretty sure this would do nothing to current law. Basically it's just "us" officially saying we won't let the Federal Government impose laws on our state that we do not want.
 

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
imported post

SQLtables wrote:
Cowboy5995 wrote:
So I need a little clarification. In the original law federal law would over rule a states law about firearms. So for example would this make SBRs and suppressors legal in Michigan?
I could be very wrong, but I'm pretty sure this would do nothing to current law. Basically it's just "us" officially saying we won't let the Federal Government impose laws on our state that we do not want.
Yep, that's the way I read it, too.
 

Ruckus

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
208
Location
Chesterfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

I received a reply to my Emailfrom my StateRepresentative (Haase, Dem, 32 District) on this. She said, "This resolution has been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary, which is not a committee I currently am a member of. However, be assured I will keep your thoughts in mind when this legislation comes before me on the floor of the House."

That's probably the company line all contituents hear when they correspond with their Reps. She hasn't replied yet to my thoughts regarding HB4348.
 
Top