Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: More states getting on board to stop federal regulation

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    States Challenge Federal Gun Regulations

    By Kamika Dunlap on April 9, 2010

    Several states have taken up legislation to keep firearms made inside their borders free from federal gun regulations.

    Arizona is the latest state to join a handful of others challenging federal gun laws. The states have adopted a version of the "Firearms Freedom Act," according to World Net Daily News.

    The laws passed by Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee and Montana are intended to break down federal government authority over the supply of firearms.

    There are several other states in various stages of their own plans to challenge federal gun laws by rolling out the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA). Alaska, Idaho and Oklahoma all have legislation that is approaching the stage of being presented to a governor to be made into law.

    The FFA was originally introduced and passed in Montana. It declared that firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress.

    South Dakota recently joined the legal battle and is supporting Montana in a lawsuit over its right to regulate firearms.

    South Dakota Legislature passed a bill patterned after Montana law is the subject of a pending federal suit. The bill says the federal government can't regulate guns that are made and sold within South Dakota.

    The states claim the federal government can't regulate guns that aren't involved in interstate commerce.

    As previously discussed, Virginia lawmakers passed 20 gun-related bills that make it easier to buy and sell guns.

    The package of bills relaxes state gun laws and has sparked a renewed debate around the 2nd Amendment.

    But several lawmakers worry that the legal changes could make Virginia the source of gun purchases for across-state sales.

    http://firearmsfreedomact.com/ sorry about them trying to get money, still some good info


    Hope you all enjoy

  2. #2
    Regular Member KansasKraut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Verona, WI
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    It's good to see the states finally starting to stick up for themselves. I hope they continue to use the 10th Amendment as a means for beating back the ever-encroaching tentacles of the federal octopus. But good golly, there's a lot of beatin' yet to do...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Could this mean..... automatic firearms?!?!!?

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    MrAwesome wrote:
    Could this mean..... automatic firearms?!?!!?
    Not under any FFA that I've read to date. I don't believe they have barrel requirements or for silencers. Semi for now. Once we get a court opinion and depending on what they say, perhaps that will be the next step.

Posting Permissions

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