The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is sweeping the Nation.
June 3rd, 2010
Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
Following initial Montana enactment, clones of the Firearms Freedom Act have subsequently been enacted in Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota, and other clones have been introduced in the legislatures of twenty-some other states.
The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise.
Help Fund the Lawsuit – Donate
@eaglesnester
No, Montana needs to have its firearms manufactured, sold and stay in Montana as with the other green states in order for the “Commerce Clause” remain a moot point.
@RossD
Ok, then we can outlaw cars because they kill more people than guns ever did kill by accidents..of course, we all know we will be victims to gun toting criminals but maybe we can talk them out of shooting us in the head?
This is not about guns but it could be linked to the anti-gun laws.
During the Prohibition juries refused to convict anyone accused of liquor possession, sales or consumption which cause the Prohibition laws to fail due to lack of enforceability.
It is very important to our country and Constitution that citizens are aware of their right as jurors and Grand Jurors to reach a verdict of not guilty when the law is Un-Constitutional because a law that is not Constitutional is null and void as if it never existed from its’ inception. The rights and duties of the jurors and Grand Jurors is one of the main reasons this is a Republic.
Many judges will tell the jurors that they have to reach a verdict based on the written law at the time of the alleged offense(s), which is not true but it is true the courts have been usurping the powers and duties of the jurors and Grand Jurors over the decades especially since the Prohibition when the jurors knew their rights and duties and the fact that un-Constitutional laws are not laws at all.
Juries and Grand Jurors are not required to give reasons for their verdict. Nullification of laws that are not laws is not only legal but it is the duty of the jurors and Grand Jurors because that is an essential if not vital part of the systems of checks and balances…Redman, Jury Nullification on youtube.com but there are other sources.
Hope this helps to education many citizens and bring our country back to the shining example of freedom it was meant to be.
Michael Badnarik has Constitutional courses on youtube.com also.
God bless and take care.
“No, Montana needs to have its firearms manufactured, sold and stay in Montana as with the other green states in order for the “Commerce Clause” remain a moot point.”
That’s not correct. It’s true that if we can get current perversion of Commerce Clause thinking corrected even back to that point, it will be a boon to us over our servants, but even THAT view trusts the feds with far more power than was originally intended. It was pretty much intended to keep states from preventing commerce between their citizens and those of other states, creating tariffs on interstate trade and so on, and that was about it.
IOW, Wickard v. Filburn and it’s illegitimate spawn are, regrettably, the law of the land for the moment, but don’t confuse that with those decisions being “correct” from a moral, logical, or Constitutional point of view.
@Linda don’t leave out doctors… hospital mistakes kill a lot of people – including my daughter!
Steve,
I would humbly refer you to Federalist 78, specifically the following:
“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. ”
We all know Wickard v. Filburn was a horrible decision and completely contrary to the Constitutional idea of regulation of interstate commerce. I submit to you the following: The Supreme Court can do NOTHING to enforce such a decision. In regards to this decision in particular and SCOTUS (and any court, for that matter) decisions in general, none of this hand-wringing necessary. We simply behave as if it never happened.
- P.
Linda and Publis, thank you both for your educated and relevant postings, it is refreshing to see folks like you posting, rather than the liberal rhetoric spewing bottom dwellers who can’t wait to disarm us, so they can prey upon us.
From Fortune magazine, April 12 2010, page 102:
“…[W]ater that’s packaged and sold in the same state — about 70% of the bottled water sold in the U.S. — is exempt from federal regulation [from EPA and FDA] because it doesn’t cross state lines….”
If we are a nation of Laws, they must be applied consistently, in adherence with the Constitution. Let’s pray all states pass a Firearms Freedom Act!
One more step of thr federal government infriging om our god given rights…
There is no need to spend money and time on legislation and lawsuits. The law (Constitution) is already in place. The 50 states need to stand up, utilize the nullification process and make null and void the federal laws that are repugnant to the Constitution as Jefferson and Madison envisioned in 1798.
WEll said mark.
Good gun rights polls:http://www.patriotslist.com/polls/all/index.php?poll=51
This link must be read by anyone and everyone who wishes to have this movement succeed:
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php
I wish Mississippi would get something on the books here. I’m sure it would pass if introduced. I’ve written my Legislator several times on other issues. I’ll write them again on others. But if anyone else from MS would like to help me keep pestering them something will get done.
JUST A NOT THIS IS NOT ONLY FOR PA IT IS FOR ALL OF THE USA
I would like to offer the opportunity for Congressman & PA State Representative & Pa State Senate to join us on the our Conference line to discuss topics of interest with the members. This would be a wonderful opportunity for members to learn the laws and to get answers to questions they may have. It would also allow the Congressman to know what citizens have on their minds as well and the need of the comminuity. The conference line would be open for a 2 to 3 hour discussions about gun rights,how to help truck drivers and many other topics of interest. If you are interested in sharing with our members and would like to join a scheduled Conference call , please feel free to contact me with details. I would need to know the topic / date/ and time you would be available. This way I can post it to members. Thank you for the consideration and chance to help our members educate themselves more
P.S. YOU MAY ALSO HAVE YOUR fellow law makers call us also so come and join in
A short message to all about a new opportunity that I have available to PA Right To Bear Arms . I have setup a free conference line for all to be able to use. I like the setup of this program and I believe many will enjoy it. We can have discussions about any current news and old concerning the gun laws. I do ask that when using this conference line that all be considerate of others and not use any unwanted language , I want to keep this informative and fun. I would like to get guests like Larry Pratt from GOA to join in the conversations. Other guests will be welcome as well, if you have someone in mind just contact me with info as to when and what the topic would be. I look forward to sharing this new learning experience with everyone.
Conference dial-in number: (712) 432-0075
access code: 264667
@RossD
No sir, that is incorrect. The instances in which you speak of were perpetrated as either crimes of passion or lack of parenting. Gun control only disarms those of us who wish to protect ourselves, not the criminals who wish to harm others. Those criminals have been finding ways to obtain weapons illegally for many years and will continue to do so with or without anyone’s consent. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. By putting these bans on firearms you are only hurting yourself. If you’re going to blame guns for the deaths of others, then we can also blame our silverware for the obesity problems of America.
Oregon will almost certainly have this introduced in 2011.
@Linda
And I suppose pregnancy is not about child bearing.
With the August 31, 2010 decision by the Judge Magistrate, what is the next action that MSSA will take?
I read something under Article V of the constitution it said if 3/4 of the states ratify something under their own constitution then it can be held in convention and the legislature must act on it. I am not exactly sure how it all works. However I was reading the 17th amendment in which Senators were directly elected instead of appointed by the state legislatures. Also look at US vs miller. Most importantly remember that the Term Militia means any able bodies person who can carry a weapon a State’s national guard down not count because they are contracted by the government. So A State’s national guard is not what is meant by the term Milita. Militia means average citizens not conscripted into any service either active, reserves, or guard. It’s important to look at the actual definition of the word and if a member of the bar association try’s to redefine it. Have a dictionary handy to correct them.
I agree it would not be a bad thing if every state had its own arms industry just in case we ever have to wage war against the Federal government. We don’t want to be in the same situation as the south was in 1861, with little to no ability to produce new arms.
We need at least some basic industry to start with and build upon.
Additionally highly distributed arms industry would make the United States as a whole much more resemblant in the event of war in which our centralized manufacturers would almost assuredly be destroyed by enemy bombing.
So I like the whole idea of this law, from every perspective of it.
@Linda
Tennessee manufacture firearms in state. ever heard of the barrett .50 cal sniper rifle or rec-7
Has the Tennessean bill passed yet? This is going to heavily affect my future firearms company whether or not it passes. My deep passion for the right of a man to be free is going to lead me through deep doodey. It makes me sick that we’ve degraded far enough as a country to question and heavily regulate our own God given rights. One things for sure, the 2010 elections are only going to brake Federal incroachment. So many of our leaders stubbornly believe in having only one small group of narrowly minded people running America. The funny thing is that there are 50 other governments in our country that are our states. And I think I am not lying if I say that the majority of the state governments are trying to corner the Big Bully. This confrontation over the 2nd and 10th amendments, if we succeed, will be like duct tapping the Feds’ eyes shut and making them rely on the orders of the states. Just like it should have always been. “Wake up people, smell the ashes, hear the approaching gale, feel the ground shake from the thunderous oppression”. We are at war for our rights, and our leaders along with the rest of the world are fixing their bayonets as we speak, ready to overrun us. Let us do the same, but with honor, rightousness, and patriotism. Good luck brothers of the Constitution. God be with us all.
If you really want to understand this issue, you have to read “Wickard v. Filburn”. It’s not a long decision, but it’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause is what has led us to this point in political corruption. The Supremes in Wickard essentially said, “all commerce is interstate commerce and even if something isn’t commerce, if it could even remotely affect commerce anywhere, then it’s interstate commerce.” In Wickard, a man growing wheat on his own farm, entirely for his own use, not a single grain of which was ever to leave his farm (let alone cross a state line), was deemed to be engaging in “interstate commerce”.
The FFA efforts are nothing less than the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment versus the asinine decision by a bunch of boobs in black in Wickard.
IF the FFA prevails, legitimate challenges may be made to the very existence of the ATF, DEA, HUD, ED, FBI, etc.
The NFA 1934 and GCA 1968 would be ripe for elimination. Up to 85% of the Federal Government might eventually be found to be unconstitutional.
All of which is to say that this fight is not just about guns.
Oddly, one of the major allied legal thrusts is the legalization of marijuana, which George W. said was banned by the Feds because, legalizing it would affect… interstate commerce.
Of course, even the most elementary analysis of the commerce clause application as sanctified by the Supremes will show they overreached. If the Founders had intended ALL commerce and all actions AFFECTING commerce to be controlled by congress, would they have specified INTERSTATE commerce? Or simply written, “Congress may control everything”? In other words, why specify INTERSTATE commerce if you mean, interstate, intrastate and even things that aren’t commerce?
The Founders were not that sloppy. But the Supremes were. And are.
If you want to look at the truth about interstate commerce, read the UCC code, and remember that the court for this is Admiralty Court. Do a search for Common Law, Admiralty Court, Chattel, and about the Straw Man. Look into the Geneva Convention (I think the 2nd one) for the 1930′s ,and the Great Depression, and read about the bankruptcy.
Now you will know why the Federal Government is wanting to stop this as soon as possible. Their big secret is about to come into view before all, and they can’t have this. I’m sure any attorney’s on here would like to address it? That’ why a certain few court cases were thrown out, and the documents sealed. It’s happened several times, and the cases were documented.
The IRS and the Feds would really like to deny all of this, but if push comes to shove in the Supreme Court, things are going to change.
I thought I would add that trying to use the Straw Man to get out of paying taxes, etc, will get you nowhere, as you still have to pay them. The ones who promote this are a scam. However, the Federal Government does use us, or our name as Chattel when getting loans.
If you read the IRS website about the Straw man, they don’t deny it exists, they just say you can’t use it to evade taxes. It’s a mess from the Great Depression known as the National Debt, and we’re stuck with it. Anyhow, read about it, you might find it interesting.
One last note on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights concerning the definition of a Militia.
I myself am a Democrat, but I whole heatedly support the 2nd Amendment. There are several-several Democratic congressmen who support it as witnessed by the NRA backing for this upcoming election. I do not endorse those in my party like Dianne Feinstein but as a certifiable lunatic.
Now about the definition of Militia. Some would want you to believe that it only means the military of the Federal Government, when in fact, it does not, and was not at the time of the signing of the Constitution. Below is three quotes, starting with James Madison.
James Madison in 1789;
“The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”
Tench Coxe in 1789;
“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
The Militia Act of 1792;
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.”
I hope PA is next!
what part of the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon does the federal government not understand.
Yes, Montana Firearms Freedom Act is valid for firearms made and sold to those intending to remain in Montana, but once these are private property, all government attachments or control are severed.
Sadly, we now have this being attempted by the BATFAE: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/11/atf-working-on-its-next-economic-waco.html
That means Montanans need to plan to defend themselves against a rogue, armed US government. In addition to that, don’t let them live in your neighborhoods, rent hotel rooms, enroll in schools, eat in restaurants. Follow them constantly. Make them know that you Montanans won’t take their criminal behavior.
@Linda
No NO, as Obama has said. When you are being threatened by a criminal you dont need a gun or anything to defend yourself with. You have the right to flee! As long as you have this right, you need nothing else! *GAG*
What is the next step on this fight? I see the suit was dismissed, is there still hope of moving forward with this?
May I suggest that you look at what the federal gun laws actually say. The federal government only has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and in necessary forts and magazines. Why do I say this? Because most of the federal statutes use a simple 5 letter word called “State” when describing who or what is to comply with the so called federal gun laws. The term “State” is clearly defined to only mean the District of Columbia. It is a cunning deception by Congress. As for “interstate commerce,” most of it only applies to commerce between the District of Columbia and the Territories.
“The law (Constitution) is already in place. The 50 states need to stand up, utilize the nullification process and make null and void the federal laws that are repugnant to the Constitution as Jefferson and Madison envisioned in 1798.”
Where I have been able to read about it?
PLEASE SONEONE, help NY realize we need to pass The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA)
Behind you all the way. Please let me know if there is any way I can help with any my web sites.
@James
Stop HOPING your state is next. Be the change you want to be. Go to gun shows and advocate for your state’s firearms freedom act. Start a website. Send emails. Talk it up at shooting ranges and gun stores. Don’t wait for someone else to do the work for you. Make it happen!
Life is not a spectator sport.
@NYPD 45
It’s not too likely because of the huge population-base in the southeastern portion of the state. Out here in the ‘sticks’, we would all be hugely supportive of this act, but we just don’t have the population to help make it happen. 1 bourough (sp?) in NYC has more people in it than everywhere west of Albany. Our only hope out here is our understanding of the supremacy of the County Sherriff, and our juries that are predominantly pro-gun… We know what it’s like to be in a rural area, where guns are an important tool in our daily lives…
There is an efficient process to ACHIEVE the goal rather than perpetually espouse the goal for mob-rule (democracy) action. The US Constitution (prevailing or superior law) was not a statute law or public law (inferior law) voted on by the masses. It was a reasoning-based law enacted by a few reasoning people to preclude mob-rule from denying minorities human rights.
The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a proposed inferior (statute) law replacing the effect of a superior law (2nd Amendment) that is therefore negated. “Acquiescence to an inferior law is to surrender the protection of the related superior law.”
There is a process to efficiently nullify all 20,000 local, State and federal inferior gun restriction laws contradicting the superior US Constitution (2nd, 9th, 10th Amendments, etceteras).
Amusingly, none of the many gun owner rights organization or government leaders are interested because their lucrative institution is predicated on maintaining the problem rather than solving it.
Respectfully, DougBuchanan.com
Thank you and may God Bless you as well!
May I quote you?
~R
That someone is, YOU!
@Linda
On the contrary, so long as the firearms are manufactured and sold only within the state, the commerce clause doesn’t apply. An individual could take their firearm out of the state, so long as they don’t intend to or try to sell it.
@Adam
guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Maybe we need government control….at least 57 million people killed by their own governments due to firearms restrictions….and what part of law abiding gun owners don’t they understand ! Take some self respondsibilty traitors…don’t demonize the gun!…it’s the social misfits you create through your socialist devastion who are to blame.
This is great! We all need to have this discussion and challenge the current thinking.
I really wish our government was “for the people” sadly it not. I really do believe America (or atleast my state, California) will become like Nazi Germany exept without the genocide. The reason is, is because if you follow history and look. You will see that before, the Nazi’s (or any other tyranical regime) took power they first started restricting peoples rights to own a gun. Once the Nazi’s took power, they further restricted gun ownership untill each person was completely disarmed. From their they deprived the people from basic freedoms since no person(s) could fight back. And from there each person knows what happened from there. As far as this FFA goes. I believe it will not work unless every person in a state does not enforce any gun regulation law unlawfully passed by our government. If you look at the constitution, the PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT is to UPHOLD and PROTECT the rights of the people. Taking away a right or restricting a right is neither upholding nor protecting an individuals right.
“Just because you have a right, does not mean that the government can not constrain it.” – Barack Obama
All american gun manufacturers need to set up satellite production facilities in all FFA states and we will REALLY have taken our most important amendment back.
Has this movement stopped all of a sudden? All of the info that I read about concerning the ffa is old junk. Any info would be greatly appreciated.