10th Amendment

imported post

Hello All,

I just read the following, and thought that it was encouraging that states are nullifying Federal Laws, and they way they are doing it. I don't see Connecticut getting in the for front of things like this, but it can help people in our sister states if we stir the pot a little. It seemed to have worked with the Real ID Act. I post this here to stir the mental juices. Don't know where it can or will go yet.



Nullification: Firearms Freedom Act Introduced in Ohio

Posted on 21 October 2009
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...tion-firearms-freedom-act-introduced-in-ohio/


Introduced in the Ohio House on October 16, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-315) seeks “To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words “Made in Ohio” be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio.”

The bill was authored by State Representatives Morgan and Martin, and currently has 15 other co-sponsors. (h/t BuckeyeFirearms.org and OhioFreedom.com)

While the HB315’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

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

Firearms Freedom Acts have already passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and have been introduced in a number of other states around the country. There’s been no lack of controversy surrounding them, either. The Tenth Amendment Center recently reported on the ATF’s position that such laws don’t matter:

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

Advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter if the federal government disagrees, or even threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma. Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, and founder of http://www.firearmsfreedomact.com/ took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:

“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills. And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.“

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.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws - in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

While many advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

imported post

Yeah you'd think with Charter, Marlin, Ruger, Colt I believe, and probably more firearm manufacturers in this state that they could do more business making "Made in CT" weapons.

What you'd need however is representatives in the government with even a semblance of a backbone to propose such legislation. None of the folks I've seen in the legislature strike me as the 10th amendment types. They are too busy sucking at the government teat saying "please sir, can I have some more?"

imported post

I couldn't resist another story about gun law nullification, this time from KY.


Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment

Posted on 11 November 2009
by Michael Boldin

In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.

The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”

While the FFA’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:

“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

NULLIFICATION

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

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.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states...............More here: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...sist-abuses-of-commerce-clause-2nd-amendment/

imported post

All of the preceding means nothing as long as Connecticut requires its citizens to possess a license in order to exercise a right, thus converting that right to a privilege.

The right to bear arms means the right to openly carry - no license required.

If, perhaps, the act of concealing is viewed as dastardly and/or ungentlemanly, then permission from the State may be required.

Concealed carry may be a privelege, and subject to licensure, but open carry is a right, as stated in your own state's constitution.

imported post

If anyone wishes to step it up a notch and can get their legislature to remove provisions allowing Federal law enforcement individuals ie. BATF, FBI, Postal Inspectors, and any of the other alphabet Fed. organizations exemption from State carry restrictions putting them on the same level as other citizens it might take a little of the bite out of their bark. Just me thinking out loud.

imported post

Here's one that is floating around the New Hampshire legislature with teeth.


Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws
01. Jan, 2010
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...legislators-look-to-nullify-federal-gun-laws/

by Michael Boldin

NH Legislators again raise the bar for the 10th Amendment Movement – felony charges proposed for federal agents violating gun rights in New Hampshire

Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session in New Hampshire, House Bill 1285 (HB1285) seeks to “exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation.”

Introduced by State Rep. Dan Itse, the bill currently has 5 other co-sponsors, including 10-4 pledge signer, Carol Vita. (h/t NHLiberty.org)

While the bill’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. It states, in part:


The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States 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 New Hampshire certain powers as they were understood at the time that New Hampshire ratified the Bill of Rights, particularly the Tenth Amendment in 1790. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the State and people of New Hampshire and the several States comprising the United States as of the time that the compact was agreed upon and adopted by New Hampshire and the several States comprising the United States.


The regulation of inter-state commerce was delegated by the People of the Several States to the federal government in the US Constitution. Since the regulation of intra-state commerce was not delegated to the federal government, this authority, as codified in law by the 10th Amendment, remains with the State governments or the People themselves.

HB1285 includes this principle in its text:


a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire is not subject to federal law or taxation, or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in New Hampshire from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into New Hampshire from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in New Hampshire.


Unlike many other states that are considering Firearms Freedom Acts (FFA), the New Hampshire legislation includes official sanctions on any state or federal official violating the law, if adopted.

State Agents:


Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.


Federal Agents:


Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony. (emphasis added)


NULLIFICATION

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

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.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

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.

Felony charges for violations of citizens’ rights such as proposed in HB1285 are certainly an effort to interpose between state residents and an overreaching federal government. Time will tell if the State Apparatus will follow through with such needed actions should the bill pass.

Important New Book

Here is an important new book: "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century" by Tom Woods. http://www.amazon.com/dp/1596981490...iveASIN=1596981490&adid=0H0HA95GPW4VNMSNE2Z7&

This is an explanation of how to use the 10th Amendment and how it was used in the past.





The Book Washington D.C Is Afraid Of
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/book-washington-dc-is-afraid-of.html


It should be obvious to every observant American that the government based out of Washington D.C. is out of control. From a country founded on the concept of freedom, the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch ignore the fundamental precepts of the Constitution and attempt to regulate "the People" and take at will.

It seems there is little "the People" can do, with all three branches of government ganging up against them. Tom Woods, though, argues that there is something that can be done, and that something is nullification.

In a brilliant book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, Woods' educates readers on the Constitution, and what it means, in a manner that most assuredly you did not learn in High School or college. Most importantly, Woods focuses on the concept of nullification, a concept that goes back to Thomas Jefferson. The concept being that states have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws.

As examples of nullification, he discusses the current attempts by some states to legalize medicinal marijuana (despite opposition at the Federal level). He discusses the actions by states that for all practical purposes nullified the federal Real ID Act of 2005. Woods writes that half of the states issued formal declarations that they had no intention of complying with the federal mandate. Woods states that “resistance was so widespread that although the law is still on the books, the federal government has, in effect, given up trying to enforce it.”

Woods also points out that nullification can go beyond the state level and be carried out on an individual level. He cites jury nullification as an example.

Most intriguing, Woods suggests that nullification could take the form of states requiring its citizens to send federal income tax money to the states where it would be put into escrow accounts, where the states then individually determine what legitimately should go to the federal government, with perhaps the states sending the rest back to its citizens.

If you haven't figured it out, this is a radical book, but it is radical constitutionalism, soundly argued. Given the overbearing reach of the Federal government, the nation, outside of Washington D.C., is fed up. This is the book that can provide the manual to take back the country. There are already indications Washington D.C. is scared of this book. I am writing this on Saturday June 26, after returning from the Borders Books at the corner of 14th Street and F Street in Washington D.C. This Borders is just two blocks from the White House. Woods' book is officially not scheduled to be released until Monday June 28, but as is often the case, the book was put on the shelf a couple of days early.

When I spotted the book it was face forward, the way they put books they want to promote, but there was only one copy. This struck me as odd given that the book was face forward, which suggested to me there was originally other copies. Further, since the book isn't officially out until Monday, it's doubly odd there is only one copy. I found a clerk and asked him if he could tell me how many copies of the book the store originally received. He looked it up for me. First, he noticed that the book wasn't officially out until Monday, but that the store had originally received 6 copies. He looked confused that there was only one copy left. I said to him, "That's alright. I think I understand."

A book that provides a playbook on how to reverse out of control government is selling like hotcakes just blocks from the White House. I get it. Some people are very afraid of this book and need to find out what is in it real fast. They know this book has nation changing potential. I say buy the book, get the nullification argument down cold, get in on the debate and scare the hell out of Washington D.C.

One of the New England states has it right

Breaking News: The New Hampshire Firearms Freedom Act just passed the House ‎240-120 and is moving on to the Senate!

Looks like the New House is fighting back against Federal Tyranny, this is good news for the other State Sovereignty bills that follow! http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/new-hampshire-house-passes-firearms-freedom-act/


Here's the nice part of the text:

http://newhampshire.tenthamendmentc...ucing-the-new-hampshire-firearms-freedom-act/

.......The State of New Hampshire declares that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire is not subject to federal law or taxation, or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

A firearm manufactured or sold in New Hampshire under this chapter shall have the words “Made in New Hampshire” clearly stamped, inscribed, or otherwise marked on a central part of the firearm, such as the receiver or frame.

Any public servant of the state of New Hampshire that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

This shall apply to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in this chapter, and retained in New Hampshire after January 1, 2012.