State By State

January 12th, 2012 Leave a comment Go to comments

Help Fund the Lawsuit – Donate

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas

California Colorado Connecticut

Delaware Delaware Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii Hawaii $32,000 Hawaii $32,000

Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa

Kansas Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine Maryland Maryland massachusettes Michigan Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana

Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Jersey New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota

Ohio Oklahoma Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island Rhode Island

South Carolina South Dakota

Tennessee Texas

Utah

Vermont Virginia

Washington Washington D.C. Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Alabama
HB48 – 1/12/10


Alaska
HB 186
Signed by Governor – 5/27/10


Arizona
HB2307 – 1/19/10
SB1098
Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2307 – 4/5/10


Arkansas
HB1487 – 2/22/11


California
Nothing Yet


Colorado
SB10-092 – 1/22/10


Connecticut
Nothing Yet


Delaware
Nothing Yet


District of Columbia
Nothing Yet


Florida
HB21


Georgia
Intending FFA


Hawaii
Nothing Yet


Idaho
HB589 – 2/22/10
Governor Butch Otter signed HB 589 – 4/8/2010


Illinois
Nothing Yet


Indiana
SB0200
SB0276
SB0416
SB0291 – 1/18/2011


Iowa
HF104 Firearms Freedom Act for Suppressors – 1/25/10
HF121 – 1/26/10


Kansas
HB2620 – 2/2/10
SB149 – 2/8/11
HB2421 – 1/9/12


Kentucky
BR348 – 11/6/09
“Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act” has been prefiled for upcoming session – 12/30/10
HB38 – 1/4/11
SB33 – 1/4/11
SB73 – 1/3/12
HB222 – 1/6/12


Louisiana
SB175 – 3/17/10


Maine
Nothing Yet


Maryland
Nothing Yet


Massachusetts
Nothing Yet


Michigan
House Bill 5232
Michigan ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ Legislation Introduced 8/12/09


Minnesota
HF2376


Mississippi
Nothing Yet


Missouri
HB1230 – 12/01/09
HB361 – 1/31/11


Montana
HB 246 Passed.
Effective on October 1, 2009.


Nebraska
Nothing Yet


Nevada
Nothing Yet


New Hampshire
HB1285 – 1/6/10

HB 1285 departs from the Montana model in that it sets criminal penalties for any person attempting to enforce federal criminal laws against the maker of a New Hampshire-made and retained firearm.

HB1433
HB0125 – 1/18/11


New Jersey
Nothing Yet


New Mexico
Nothing Yet


New York
Nothing Yet


North Carolina
HB241 – 3/3/11


North Dakota
Nothing Yet


Ohio
HB315 – 10/16/09


Oklahoma
HB2884
HB1291 – 2/7/11
HB1645 – 2/7/11


Oregon
HB2796 – 1/18/11


Pennsylvania
HB 1988 – 9/18/09
HB752 – 2/17/11


Rhode Island
Nothing Yet


South Carolina
S. 794
Spartanburg County state senator aims for SC gun rights – 12/26/2010


South Dakota
SB89 – 1/22/10
Governor Rounds Signs Firearms Freedom Act into Law – 3/12/10


Tennessee
HB 1796 and SB 1610
7/9/09 – the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1. It has become law without the governor’s signature.
Washington drops hammer on state gun plan – 7/21/09
Tennessee: Firearms Freedom Act Passes Both Houses – 6/3/09
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act To Pass Without Signature – 6/3/09
ATF Declares Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act Null And Void – 7/19/09
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act – 2/28/07
TN Firearms Freedom Act: Tells Federal Government to Get Out of Our Business – 6/6/09
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act Passes HB 1796 – 6/10/09
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act – 6/5/09


Texas
Texas Legislature to Consider Firearms Freedom Act – 11/16/10
Firearms Freedom Act HB145 Introduced in Texas – 11/16/10


Utah
File #0032  – 11/10/09
Gun proposal would defy feds – 11/18/09
Utah to Feds: Keep your laws off our guns! – 11/18/09
UT Governor Signs FFA – 2/26/10


Vermont
Nothing Yet


Virginia
HB 69 – 12/29/09
HB1731 – 1/10/11
HB1438 – 11/09/10


Washington
HB2709 – 1/12/10
HB1990 – 2/17/11


West Virginia
SB555 – 2/12/10
SB84 – 1/13/11
HB2705 – 1/21/11


Wisconsin
Nothing Yet


Wyoming
HB95 – 1/6/10
Wyoming gov. signs bill on federal gun regulation – 3/11/10
The WFFA differs from the original Montana model in that it
establishes potential state penalties for anyone arresting a Wyoming
person making or selling firearms, ammunition or accessories done in
compliance with the WFFA.

  1. August 12th, 2009 at 07:30 | #1

    See article: Michigan ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ Legislation Introduced. Link: http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=4472&zoneid=6

  2. August 23rd, 2009 at 08:43 | #2

    Every state in the union should do legislation such as this with ALL of our rights. Farmers are suffering because of regulation, and most industry is failing because of regulation, and that is all we ever hear about, regulate this and regulate that. Federal government needs to stay out of our business and leave us alone. Maybe if enough states do this, they will recognize the need to downsize or scale down the size of government. They are there to govern not to rule.

  3. September 4th, 2009 at 14:04 | #3

    @Valeria Lindholm

    VERY WELL PUT VALERIA! My thoughts exactly. Under our constitution states were given specific rights so the federal govt. could never seize absolute control and it would be forced to listen to the voice of the people. We need to use those rights and QUIT letting the fed. govt. railroad Americans.

    VERY relieved to see Washington State is onboard with the Firearms Act. I fully support it and will be writing my legislators today to let them know that.

  4. October 1st, 2009 at 15:22 | #4

    Would it be possible to add to the “Intending FFA” lines a link or links to supporting information (e.g. bills, news articles, etc.) so that local supporters know what and who to work in support of?

    Thanks!

  5. Tom
    October 4th, 2009 at 14:04 | #5

    Yes, please put up links to the states FFA efforts so we can rally behind them.

  6. Michael O’Neill
    October 26th, 2009 at 17:10 | #6

    Congratulations Ohio on turning “blue”!

  7. December 3rd, 2009 at 20:48 | #7

    Come on North Carolina, lets get this passed!!

  8. Jim
    December 9th, 2009 at 07:28 | #8

    Arizona needs to go Blue and then Green Please !!!

  9. Pablo
    January 7th, 2010 at 12:18 | #9

    Wyoming will consider this during the 2010 Legislative Session. the porposed bill can be seen at this site. http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2010/Introduced/HB0028.pdf

  10. Hon. David Wheeler
    January 7th, 2010 at 23:56 | #10

    New Hampshire actually has two bills summited. one with criminal penalties and one without. Hb1285 and Hb 1433

  11. sonny waller
    January 8th, 2010 at 17:59 | #11

    As resident and a citizen I say each State be Sovereign and the federal Government should abide by the Constitution only and do only as they were originally set up to do. N.C should pass the law and tell the Feds. to keep their nose out of the States business. My sentiments personally!!!!!!

  12. A. N. Mouse
    February 5th, 2010 at 11:49 | #12

    Please add the status for Arizona’s SB1098 and HB2307. (Both are past the committee with 4-3 and 5-2 votes respectively)

    On another note. I’m not fully versed on amicus curiae, but will it be published if amici are provided for this court? Is it possible for individual states to write briefs or sponsor briefs?

  13. A. N. Mouse
    February 5th, 2010 at 11:58 | #13

    Unfortunately the Arizona bills do not expressly include sound suppressors.

    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1098p.htm

  14. February 9th, 2010 at 05:22 | #14

    I noticed that sound suppressors are exempted as an accessorie, what about short-barreled weapons(SBR,SBS,AOW) that wasn’t mentioned. Would they be exempt from federal laws are would the bills keep them in their current NFA status?

  15. Mark
    February 9th, 2010 at 08:45 | #15

    With regard to Texas, you might want to change its status on your map. While the bill passed out of committee, it died on the floor when the Legislature adjourned without having had time to do anything further with it. Until someone re-introduces it during the next session (2011?) this issue is deader than a doornail.

  16. February 9th, 2010 at 20:58 | #16

    We have a second FFA bill in Wyoming. This one provides for criminal penalties for attempting to enforce federal regulations.

    Sponsored by: Representative(s) Jaggi, Brechtel, Childers, Davison, Illoway, Madden, McKim, Pedersen, Quarberg, Shepperson and Teeters and Senator(s) Burns, Case, Cooper, Dockstader and Jennings

    http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2010/Introduced/HB0095.pdf

  17. Troy Arnold
    February 16th, 2010 at 06:13 | #17

    Oklahoma needs to “GO GREEN”, and I don’t mean we need to drive electric cars…

  18. Bob Stevens
    February 26th, 2010 at 13:55 | #18

    Utah just passed SB 11 Utah Firearms Freedom Act and was sign into law by Utah Gov. Herbert today

  19. William
    February 27th, 2010 at 20:21 | #19

    Now to further push the issue of “States Rights”, more legislation needs to be passed concerning the other categories regulated by the BATFE. Now we need state legislation regulating Alcohol & Tobacco produced and consumed with in the state. Also “Explosives” should be regulated by the local Sheriffs Department as with CCW permits, not some desk jocky in The District of Columbia.
    Also with following New Hampshire’s example, more states need to pass laws and set penalties on State and/or Federal Enforcement Officers, Federal Prosecutors & Federal Court Judges for attempting to enforce federal criminal laws or prosecute state citizens for intrastate activities when there is no Federal Jurisdiction. Also we need to remind the Sheriffs of each county that they hold Ultimate Jurisdiction over the Fed and they (the sheriff) are obligated to protect it’s citizens from Federal Government corruption and unconstitutional laws.

  20. Susan Harkins
    March 3rd, 2010 at 12:49 | #20

    Mississippi (the big hunter state) has not yet done ANYTHING? WTF? Time to flush some baphoons out of office. This is a complete embarassment!

  21. Josey
    March 6th, 2010 at 16:12 | #21

    We need to get all the states on board, its the best way to help fight agaist the New World Order!

  22. Lance R. Power
    March 6th, 2010 at 17:28 | #22

    WY HB0095 is the one to watch on this issue. It is the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act and passed on 3rd reading 3/4/10

  23. Len Smith
    March 12th, 2010 at 06:57 | #23

    @Susan Harkins

    Susan, being a Mississippi resident, I’m with you on this issue. I’ll be contacting the “Berks and Baphoons” here. If they push back, they get pushed out!

  24. March 17th, 2010 at 12:01 | #24

    COME ON TEXAS. LETS GET WITH THE PROGRAM. I, FOR ONE, DONT WANT THE GODLESS SIXTYTHREE VERMIN IN WASHINGTON TELLING ME WHAT I CAN DO WITH MY FIREARMS. I AM SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IT. GET ‘ER DONE, DUDES, OR YOU MAY BE REPLACED TOO.
    AN IRATE AMERICAN…….A THIRTEEN STARS AND STRIPE AMERICAN. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS NEEDS TO AFFIRM HER SOVERENTY AND STAND UP TO THE THUGS OR SECEED WITH THE OTHER STATES AND FORM OUR OWN UNITED STATES OF THE REAL AMERICANS FOR A REAL AMERICA. THERE MAY HAVE TO BE ONE MORE REVOLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY TO GET THEIR ATTENTION. I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT, MY FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE IS PRAYER. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND SPACE..

  25. Curt Gould
    March 17th, 2010 at 16:13 | #25

    If West Virginia does not pass this bill, well that would be tragic. Sadly, I feel it will not. We have been under Democrat control our entire existance.(it shows as we are last in everything) People in this state are slavish in their lust for their senators, some of the most corrupt in the nation!
    I believe that even if everybody in this state knew about this and knew their Sen. would vote against it, they would still re and re and re and re and relect them!
    God save America!

  26. March 24th, 2010 at 08:55 | #26

    Arizona’s Firearms Freedom Act was apparently written by imbeciles. It excludes from the exemption any firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with a single trigger pull. It’s seems obvious to me that this would exclude shotguns. I’m sure they are wanting to exclude machine guns, but apparently they do not know how to craft legislation. In any case, the Arizona Constitution says that the right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired. Excluding machine guns and other destructive devices from the exemption is a clear impairment of the individual’s right to defend the state, if not himself, particularly in light of the current trends in Washington. I guess it’s better than nothing, but if we really wanted to piss on the Federals, we would not exclude shotguns and machine guns from the exemption.

  27. March 31st, 2010 at 08:49 | #27

    WHEN THE 10TH AMENDMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED, THE STATES GOVERNMENTS’ REPUBLICS AS WELL AS THE COUNTIES’, CITIES’ AND TOWNS’ REPUBLICS WERE ALREADY OPERATING UNDER CERTAIN RULES (STATUS 1N QUO) PERTAINING TO A REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THE 10TH AMENDMENT RULES WERE NEVER SPELLED OUT. THE BOOK “10TH AMENDMENT SECURES A REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT!!!” IS THE FIRST ONE TO DO SO BASED UPON BOTTOM TO TOP REPRESENTATIONAL MODE SATISFYING THE 10TH AMENDMENT. THE POWER OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTS THE BOTTOM TO TOP REPRESENTATIONAL MOD STARTING AT QUASI EQUAL DISTRICTS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE 10TH AMENDMENT CONSTRUCTS REPUBLICS. THE PLANNERS OF CONSTITUTION WERE SO PLEASED OF THE PASSING OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT THEY THOUGH THAT THE STATUS 1N QUO WHICH EXISTED THEN WOULD LAST FOR EVER. THE 17TH AMENDMENT TOOK CARE OF THE STATUS 1N QUO SITUATION REPLACING A UNITED STATES REPUBLIC WITH A NON UNITED STATES REPUBLIC (EVEN THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD NOT USE THE WORD DEMOCRACY ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION). THE 10TH AMENDMENT GIVES ANY EXISTING UNKNOWN FUTURE POWER AT THAT TIME TO THE PEOPLE WITHIN QUASI EQUAL DISTRICTS OF STATES’, COUNTIES’, CITIES’ AND TOWNS’ GOVERNMENTS. THE 10TH AMENDMENT SPELLS CERTAIN RULES THAT MUST BE ADHERE TO IN ORDER TO PROTECT A REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT. SINCE THE 17TH AMENDMENT DESTROYED A REPUBLIC. THOSE RULES MOST BE OBEYED TO THE INTENSITY OF IMPEACHMENT. A REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES A MOST PRECIOUS FORM OF GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT!!!

  28. Joseph
    April 6th, 2010 at 05:07 | #28

    They just passed it into law in Arizona

  29. Brad Hedstrom
    April 6th, 2010 at 22:16 | #29

    You need to update Arizona. The Govenor signed the Firearms Freedom act into law on 4/5/2010.

  30. Michael O’Neill
    April 7th, 2010 at 23:47 | #30

    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill.asp?session=26&bill=SB 146

    Here’s an update for Alaska. SB 146 is the Senate version of HB 186.

  31. Michael O’Neill
    April 7th, 2010 at 23:48 | #31
  32. April 12th, 2010 at 20:53 | #32

    I am asshamened to say I am originally born in MASS. The gun laws there are so archaic and there seems to be nothing you can do.

  33. Justa Patriot
    April 13th, 2010 at 23:04 | #33

    I gather from this article the seven states that filed under FFA are combining their efforts into a single suit:

    http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201004120850

  34. ex federal offender
    April 18th, 2010 at 05:38 | #34

    Will this provide relief for ex offenders?
    In other words, could an ex offender possess a firearm legally without violationg 922(g)

  35. Dave in denial
    April 25th, 2010 at 17:06 | #35

    No surprise here……Mass hasn’t introduced anything. Glad to see the movement is gaining steam elsewhere though!

  36. Tim
    May 4th, 2010 at 04:18 | #36

    Ummm..The federal regulation laws require licenses.. So with the FFA people don’t need a license

  37. johnny
    July 11th, 2010 at 10:06 | #37

    Florida’s bills died in committees

  38. Old Dog
    July 18th, 2010 at 00:56 | #38

    LOL, Wisconsin “Nothing yet”. Our state and Illinois are the only two without any legal concealed carry system. Hopefully in November we will get a new governor and legislature that will allow us to get that and many other wrongs righted.

    OD

  39. more intelligence please
    August 21st, 2010 at 09:11 | #39

    How can i find out what firearms manufacturers are in Tennessee?

  40. saltshaker128
    September 9th, 2010 at 08:14 | #40

    @more intelligence please
    Have you tried to Google the question? That usually works for several thousand answers to post.

  41. ken dawson
    September 27th, 2010 at 18:22 | #41

    @Curt Gould you are correct about wv

  42. Chip
    October 6th, 2010 at 03:04 | #42

    Has any one heard of ex-offender’s being able to have there firearms rights re-instated under Arizona’s new Firearms Freedom Act HB-2307 which was signed by Governor Brewer 04/05/2010?

  43. Will Matney
    October 10th, 2010 at 00:39 | #43

    The Congress does not write law, they legislate a bill, that when signed, it is made law. However, that law can be brought to the Judicial arm to be judged against what the Constitution says, and it can readily be overturned. The Federal Government then has to abide by the judicial decision, and they can not overturn the high courts decision. In other words, the judicial arm acts as, and interprets, the law of the land or common law.

    So far, as firearms law go, the Federal Government, and the BATFE have lost time, and time again. The BATFE is not the law of the land (or common law), nor can they write the law, they can only enforce the law on the books, and if the Supreme Court rules that what they do is Unconstitutional, they HAVE TO abide by it, and so does Congress, and the White House. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t doubt if it isn’t Constitutionally legal to bar the BATFE access to a State by the law of the State. There’s a lot of wiggle room in the UCC, and States rights.

    The framers of the Constitution were well aware of this, and what the Federal Government could try to do, so they placed several safety barriers in place, including the 2nd Amendment, and I pray to God that we never have to use it as the framers were afraid we would have to do.

    When the framers wrote the word Militia, they were not talking about the Federal Militia or Army, or were they talking about a State Militia. They were speaking of the Peoples Militia that may have to be formed against our own government, or against another invading government. John Madison spoke of this, and as a matter of fact, and documented history shows, that they debated about this before they wrote the Constitution.

    The 2nd Amendment does not say that we the People have the right to bear arms only when forming a militia, but that we have a right to keep and bear arms, and then form a militia if need be, after the fact, a Peoples Militia. I get so bent out of shape at some who try to reword what the Constitution says. It means plainly what it says, and nothing more, nor nothing less.

    Interstate Commerce means exactly that, a contract was made to purchase and move goods between two different states, and that that movement occurred. It does not mean goods inside a sovereign free state that stay in that State. It does not have anything to do with the Butterfly Effect, in that something one State did, caused something to happen economically in another State. That’s nothing but a fools thinking. If the Constitution meant that, it would have said that.

    Maybe its time for another Constitutional Convention, and several Amendments made to put the Federal Government back in its place where it belongs. That can be done, and I would say that there are more than enough States right now to give a 75% vote. The State Governments, and their people, are getting tired of being run rough-shod over, and something is eventually going to break. This is the only way any change can be made to the Constitution, and that is by a Convention. If that happens, there is not one thing that the Federal Government can do, but set back and take it. Neither can they do a thing about a new court case making its way to the Supreme Court for review.

  44. Chip
    October 19th, 2010 at 22:42 | #44

    Will, By any chance are you a Constitutional Attorney?

  45. Chris
    October 25th, 2010 at 18:33 | #45

    The federal government is a corporation “hired” by contract to perform certain dutys and only thoes dutys. the lack of an “end clause” to this contractual agreement has caused the leadership “CEO, chairman of the board and so on” to ignore the performance of the dutys proscribed in contract “the constitution of the USA” and begin infringment on the issuers of the contract “bill of rights” holders ability to perform the dutys/jobs and industrial activitys that actually pay for the performace of the contract. This contract needs to be re-evaluated and possibly new performace review clauses added to insure performance and insure the ability of the contract issuers ability to pay the contract and add non-performance penaltys. Opening up our constitution to amendments at this stage would be a bad idea. We need to insure some sort of “pay to play” clause so that illeagal or non-tax paying persons can not vote.

  46. Will
  47. Chip
    January 28th, 2011 at 05:36 | #47

    Will,

    Any idea what’s happening with Montana’s action?

    Chip

  48. May 21st, 2011 at 22:41 | #48

    I run a business making sound suppressors and anything that reduced the time to transfer a sound suppressor, or the tax money required to transfer a sound suppressor would greatly improve my sales figures. As it is four out of 5 sales are lost due to people discouraged by a combination of the law, the time required to obtain approval, the $200 NFA tax. I think the $200 tax in and of itself would be less damaging to business if we could simply transfer suppressors directly to law abiding citizens in other states with time frames similar to long gun or handgun transfers (3-10 days)- however the 1-2 months to the local state dealer and 3-6 months to the law abiding citizen is a hard pill to swallow and waiting time, combined with the $200 tax, hurts business success severely.

  49. Vincent
    June 4th, 2011 at 23:52 | #49

    Cmon ND

  50. vman
    September 28th, 2011 at 23:21 | #50

    @Matt
    Agreed – doesn’t make sense to exclude MGs, but it’s better than nothing. You guys are lucky – where I’m at (IL) we are lucky if we don’t get “firearms ban act”

  1. October 17th, 2009 at 02:15 | #1
  2. December 11th, 2009 at 22:49 | #2
  3. January 24th, 2010 at 07:43 | #3
  4. January 26th, 2010 at 15:09 | #4
  5. January 30th, 2010 at 09:42 | #5
  6. March 16th, 2010 at 06:51 | #6