Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: The Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act is here!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    UPDATE 1/21/2010: The Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act (KFFA), is a bill about nullifying a federal law that a state legislature declares as being unconstitutional. This is a controversial subject, and many people disagree about its effectiveness. Fear not, nullification is already being successfully used in other areas.

    Please see http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/null...-congress.html for further details.

    Quote: "When a state nullifies a federal law, it does so with the solemn conviction that the law in question is unconstitutional. The state's lawmakers, generally invoking their sovereign powers under the Tenth Amendment, are proclaiming that the offensive law is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state. In other words, they declare that the federal law is not "legal" and cannot be enforced against their citizens.

    Such nullification has a long history in the American tradition. Of late it has been used by quite a few states in effectively blocking the federal Real ID Act of 2005 and resisting federal marijuana laws. With regard to healthcare legislation expected to be forced on us against our will by Washington, a number of states are already putting into motion the wheels of nullification.

    "

    Original post follows.

    [line]
    IMPORTANT

    Support your right to Open Carry, always.

    Rep. Stan Lee has introduced what will be HB87, currently BR348, a bill pre-filed for the 2010 session in the House. PLEASE contact YOUR representative here, and urge them to co-sponsor, and support this upcoming bill. Your phone call or office visit does matter! Please forward this info to everyone you know that cares about firearms freedom in Kentucky, and open carry.

    Locate your House representative here, and contact them immediately: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/house/hsemembers.htm

    Also, please call Rep Stan Lee and thank him for pre-filing this bill, and give him your support by telling him you will contact your representative to co-sponsor and/or support his bill.

    Rep Stan Lee's page: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legislator/H045.htm

    Summary:

    BR 348 - Representative Stan Lee (11/06/09) AN ACT relating to firearms, including ammunition and accessories for firearms.
    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; provide that the exemption does not include machine guns, silencers, exploding ammunition, or firearms with a bore over one and one-half inches name the new sections the "Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act."
    See full bill here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HB87/bill.doc

    From:

    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/pre_head.htm

    "Firearms and Weapons": http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/3820.htm

    Also see: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...s-freedom-act/ to track nationwide adoption, and to post comments.

    Also, Rep Stan Lee has pre-filed a bill for state sovereignty. Please urge co-sponsoring and full support when you contact your representative for the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act above. Both bills are crucial for the future of your freedom.

    Summary: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HC10.htm

    CONCURRENT RESOLUTION claiming sovereignty over powers not granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution; serving notice to the federal government to cease mandates beyond its authority; and stating Kentucky's position that federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of loss of federal funding should be prohibited or repealed.
    Declare state sovereignty over powers not given to the federal government by the U. S. Constitution; demand the federal government to cease mandates beyond constitutionally delegated powers; prohibit federal legislation requiring state passage of laws under threat of penalties or sanctions; direct the Clerk to distribute copies of the Resolution.

    Full bill here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HC10/bill.doc :

    Bill Farmer's version:

    BR 124 - Representative David Floyd, Representative Bill Farmer (08/04/09) A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging support for the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and urging Congress not to enact any law that would infringe on the right to bear arms under the Constitution of Kentucky.
    Urge support for the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution; urge Congress not to enact any law that infringes on the right to bear arms under the Constitution of Kentucky.
    (Prefiled by the sponsor(s).)
    To: Interim Joint Committee on State Government
    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HC13.htm

    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HC13/bill.doc

    [line]
    UPDATE 1/20/2010 (Liberty4Ever):


    PLEASE SPEND FIVE MINUTES CALLING TO SUPPORT THE KENTUCKY FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT!

    The Gun Owners of America fully supports the firearms freedom act. Unfortunately, the NRA sees the conflict with the federal government and rather than appreciating the states rights issue, they see it as something that might be overturned in federal court. It's wrong, but federal courts have a habit of siding with the federal government in these issues. The NRA likes to pick battles that win in court, but this is a battle that we win even if we lose in court.

    I've been in contact with some of our usual allies in the Kentucky State Legislature and they seem to care more about what the NRA says and less about what their constituents say.

    1) PLEASE CALL 800-372-7181 AND LEAVE A MESSAGE FOR YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE ASKING FOR COSPONSORSHIP OF HB 87. THE OPERATOR WILL ASK WHERE YOU LIVE TO DETERMINE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE.

    2) PLEASE CALL 800-372-7181 AND LEAVE A MESSAGE FOR REPRESENTATIVES OWENS, FISCHER, AND WESTON TELLING THEM TO PUSH HB 87 OUT OF COMMITTEE FOR A FLOOR VOTE.

    3) PLEASE CALL THE NRA-ILA AT 800-392-8683 AND ASK THEM TO SUPPORT THE FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT.

    These calls will take a total of about five minutes. Isn't it worth five lousy minutes to advocate for firearms freedom and have your representatives actually represent you for a change? You'll feel better afterward.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    Oh that is an excellent piece of legislation. I am 100% behind it and will do my part to support and spread the word.


  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    I do not understand why efforts are made for bills like this - a state cannot declare certain products exempt from federal law - they got no say in the matter.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    I do not understand why efforts are made for bills like this - a state cannot declare certain products exempt from federal law - they got no say in the matter.
    See: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...-nobody-knows/

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    I do not understand why efforts are made for bills like this - a state cannot declare certain products exempt from federal law - they got no say in the matter.
    See: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...-nobody-knows/
    nonsense

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    I don't understand how the 10th amendment doesn't apply? I understand that the federal government can regulate interstate trade, but if something is produced & sold in the same state, how is it under federal jurisdiction?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Well, this is just my opinion, as well as many others, correct or not.

    I guess we will see what the courts have to say about it, when an emerging consensus of states declare they alone have the right to regulate intrastate commerce, explicitly defining such terms. I read somewhere that SCOTUS either cannot, or probably will not, ignore such an emerging consensus among the states, and the people, perhaps overturning some portion(s) of previous rulings on the Interstate Commerce clause.

    I believe that is where this effort is leading us. What do you suggest we do otherwise?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    Ok Mike, instead of spouting your personal opinions on the issue, would you care to reference something tangible to backup your statements.

    As far as states determining products that are exempt from federal law....how many states have medicinal use of marijuana? Hasn't the federal government backed off of prosecuting cases involving possession for that purpose, do you know why?

    Because the power is inherent in the people to decide for themselves, given enough people that agree, the state is empowered to ignore federal law if it so chooses. These check gates were put into place for a reason.

    I agree to the will of the people, not the will of politicians. If you don't agree with the basic principles that our country is founded on, well.....

    So please be a bit more eloquent in your arguments.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    I don't understand how the 10th amendment doesn't apply? I understand that the federal government can regulate interstate trade, but if something is produced & sold in the same state, how is it under federal jurisdiction?
    My understanding is that it applies, but some statist SCOTUS punks have essentially redefined interstate commerce to mean anything that "might affect" commerce in another state. I may have that wrong, but I believe they've redefined the Interstate Commerce Clause more broadly than originally intended. This must change, and it will.

    Mike can probably elaborate better than I can, since I'm not an attorney.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    This bill is total utter BS. What is the point of avoiding the Feds if you can't have MG, or suppressors. The only thing this bill disagrees with the Feds on is the DD bore diameter rule, and that will probably be fixed before it leaves committee. This bill adds nothing that benefits the average shooter. We need to get 922-o of the 86 ban repealed first, then work on the rest of the NFA.


    Prep

  11. #11
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Unfettered Might wrote:
    Ok Mike, instead of spouting your personal opinions on the issue, would you care to reference something tangible to backup your statements.

    As far as states determining products that are exempt from federal law....how many states have medicinal use of marijuana? Hasn't the federal government backed off of prosecuting cases involving possession for that purpose, do you know why?

    Because the power is inherent in the people to decide for themselves, given enough people that agree, the state is empowered to ignore federal law if it so chooses. These check gates were put into place for a reason.

    I agree to the will of the people, not the will of politicians. If you don't agree with the basic principles that our country is founded on, well.....

    So please be a bit more eloquent in your arguments.
    Excellent point! This appears to be a game of will to me. If the current administration in Washington decides it wants to violate the will of a State, or many states, it will have to deal with the consequences of those actions.

    The states are not powerless subordinates that exist to grab their ankles at the whim of Washington D.C. No, they're going to jockey for their own power. The founders knew about this human trait to acquire or maintain power too well, and states will resist to keep it.

    I agree, power rests with the people and the states, period.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    The reason the Feds can stick their noses where ever they please is due to the ruling in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    Prep

  13. #13
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Prep wrote:
    This bill is total utter BS. What is the point of avoiding the Feds if you can't have MG, or suppressors. The only thing this bill disagrees with the Feds on is the DD bore diameter rule, and that will probably be fixed before it leaves committee. This bill adds nothing that benefits the average shooter. We need to get 922-o of the 86 ban repealed first, then work on the rest of the NFA.


    Prep
    My two cents. Consider this a foot in the door bill. Remember, bills have to pass before we can amend them to make them stronger. Rep Stan Lee has to contend with the anti's in Frankfort as well. This bill benefits the average gun owner by declaring states rights, and forming a consensus among them. This is just the first step in a long legislative and court battle.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Prep wrote:
    The reason the Feds can stick their noses where ever they please is due to the ruling in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    Prep
    Yep, that's the one. If the case of a wheat farmer can overturn 150 years of court precedent, then a consensus among the states can set things straight, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    I don't understand how the 10th amendment doesn't apply? I understand that the federal government can regulate interstate trade, but if something is produced & sold in the same state, how is it under federal jurisdiction?
    Beause itis. Wickard v. Filburn; Gonzales v. Raich.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    Prep wrote:
    The reason the Feds can stick their noses where ever they please is due to the ruling in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    Prep
    Yep, that's the one. If the case of a wheat farmer can overturn 150 years of court precedent, then a consensus among the states can set things straight, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.
    I just took a glance at the wiki article. Not only was that decision an over-reach on the interstate effects angle, it was an over-reach on the commerce angle.

    Filburn wasn't commercing at all. The wheatwas for his ownuse. How can the government claim with a straight face that it can use thecommerce power to regulate something that is not even being "commerced?" Essentially, it destroys your right to produce something for yourself, forcing you into the market to obtain it, or removes your ability to even own it at all if you cannot afford to buy it.

    What's next? If I pump my own water, do I have to limit my pumpingbecause I'm not buying bottled water?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,612

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Statesman wrote:
    Prep wrote:
    The reason the Feds can stick their noses where ever they please is due to the ruling in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    Prep
    Yep, that's the one. If the case of a wheat farmer can overturn 150 years of court precedent, then a consensus among the states can set things straight, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.
    I just took a glance at the wiki article. Not only was that decision an over-reach on the interstate effects angle, it was an over-reach on the commerce angle.

    Filburn wasn't commercing at all. The wheatwas for his ownuse. How can the government claim with a straight face that it can use thecommerce power to regulate something that is not even being "commerced?" Essentially, it destroys your right to produce something for yourself, forcing you into the market to obtain it, or removes your ability to even own it at all if you cannot afford to buy it.

    What's next? If I pump my own water, do I have to limit my pumpingbecause I'm not buying bottled water?
    No but you will be subject to a host of federal and local restrictions even if you do not attempt to sell it - unless you claim a cottage industry exclusion. Do you own a cottage? :P

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Statesman wrote:
    Prep wrote:
    The reason the Feds can stick their noses where ever they please is due to the ruling in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    Prep
    Yep, that's the one. If the case of a wheat farmer can overturn 150 years of court precedent, then a consensus among the states can set things straight, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.
    I just took a glance at the wiki article. Not only was that decision an over-reach on the interstate effects angle, it was an over-reach on the commerce angle.

    Filburn wasn't commercing at all. The wheatwas for his ownuse. How can the government claim with a straight face that it can use thecommerce power to regulate something that is not even being "commerced?" Essentially, it destroys your right to produce something for yourself, forcing you into the market to obtain it, or removes your ability to even own it at all if you cannot afford to buy it.

    What's next? If I pump my own water, do I have to limit my pumpingbecause I'm not buying bottled water?
    No but you will be subject to a host of federal and local restrictions even if you do not attempt to sell it - unless you claim a cottage industry exclusion. Do you own a cottage? :P
    No, but since the government can get away with twisting the constitution all to hell, I should be able to get away with saying that my possession of cottage cheese is an exception for growing too much wheat.

    Come on by sometime and I'll pump you some water. While we still can. :P
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,612

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    No but you will be subject to a host of federal and local restrictions even if you do not attempt to sell it - unless you claim a cottage industry exclusion. Do you own a cottage? :P
    No, but since the government can get away with twisting the constitution all to hell, I should be able to get away with saying that my possession of cottage cheese is an exception for growing too much wheat.

    Come on by sometime and I'll pump you some water. While we still can. :P
    Separating the curds from the chaff again I see.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    No but you will be subject to a host of federal and local restrictions even if you do not attempt to sell it - unless you claim a cottage industry exclusion. Do you own a cottage? :P
    No, but since the government can get away with twisting the constitution all to hell, I should be able to get away with saying that my possession of cottage cheese is an exception for growing too much wheat.

    Come on by sometime and I'll pump you some water. While we still can. :P
    Separating the curds from the chaff again I see.
    Quit trying to introduce separatistKurds into my discussion. Just because they want their own country doesn't mean they belong in the conversation.Twisting my words is beginning to chafe me.

    :P
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    The Gonzales v. Raich ruling is ridiculous, what interstate commerce involving Marijuana exists in this country? Last I checked I couldn't go down to my local circle K and order a pack of Marlboro greens. Obviously the current administration feels the same way. I won't even honor the validity of that by discussing it anymore.

    The Wickard v. Filburn ruling had a purpose, HAD a purpose, despite the FACT that it is a gross misinterpretation of the text in the Constitution. Much like the ruling then overturned 150 years of case law because the period of time necessitated it, the time has come to establish limitations to such a far reaching power. The fact that many years of case law were overturned should make self evident the plausibility of it being changed again. What happens when 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 states pass such legislation? The constitution states that the government is ULTIMATELY an agent of the states. What is the government and the Supreme Court to do, ignore the will of an overwhelming percentage of the US? Not likely.

    Ultimately the power is inherent in the states, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

    Two have already made it law, one is well on it's way and 9 others have introduced it. This is what is called the "snowball" effect.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Unfettered Might wrote:
    Ultimately the power is inherent in the states, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
    huh? No. See the Supremacy Clause.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Unfettered Might wrote:
    Ultimately the power is inherent in the states, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
    huh? No. See the Supremacy Clause.
    Mike,

    Thank you for the direction on this.

    The States collectively still have the power to repeal or change that clause, correct? In that sense, isn't power still inherent in the States? I still look at each of these resolutions, or otherwise, as an emerging consensus among the states. If SCOTUS won't overturn Interstate Commerce abuse, then the next step is for the states to force the issue through an amendment of some kind.

    Article Five: Amendments Main article: Article Five of the United States Constitution See also: wikisource:Constitution of the United States of America#Article V An amendment may be ratified in three ways:
    • The new amendment may be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then sent to the states for approval.
    • Two-thirds of the state legislatures may apply to Congress for a constitutional convention to consider amendments, which are then sent to the states for approval.
    • Congress may require ratification by special convention. The convention method has been used only once, to approve the 21st Amendment (repealing prohibition, 1933).
    Regardless of the method of proposing an amendment, final ratification requires approval by three-fourths of the states.
    Today Article Five places only one limit on the amending power: no amendment may deprive a state of equal representation in the Senate without that state's consent. The original Article V included other limits on the amending power regarding slavery and taxation; however, these limits expired in 1808.


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    Statesman beat me to it. Yes that is what I was referring to when I said this;

    "What happens when 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 states pass such legislation? The constitution states that the government is ULTIMATELY an agent of the states. What is the government and the Supreme Court to do, ignore the will of an overwhelming percentage of the US? Not likely."

    Stop referencing small pieces and start looking at the whole picture. The power is ULTIMATELY inherent in the people. The government was never established to become a tyranny, which is what your suggesting is the case.

    Regardless, this proposed legislation is important. If even one person decides to not stand behind it, that would have before you were so insistent that it held no weight, then you sir have done an injustice.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Unfettered Might wrote:
    Ultimately the power is inherent in the states, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
    huh? No. See the Supremacy Clause.
    Mike,

    I think you skipped over this part of what Unfettered said, below. No offense intended sir, but I think lawyers today have been indoctrinated by educational institutions into thinking we live in some kind of authoritarian super state, with subordinate regions serving it.

    However, I believe you are correct in your assertion that "a State" cannot simply assert that products are not subject to federal regulation. I think the goal of the ten amendment movement, as I have said repeatedly, is to form a consensus among the states, which becomes an entirely different, and relevant matter. This is why it is crucial for everyone in Kentucky to support this bill, and ODCO members in other states should do the same.

    consensus, consensus, consensus !!

    The constitution states that the government is ULTIMATELY an agent of the states. What is the government and the Supreme Court to do, ignore the will of an overwhelming percentage of the US? Not likely.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •