Firearms Freedom Act

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

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.

@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.

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!

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

Congratulations Ohio on turning “blue”!

Come on North Carolina, lets get this passed!!

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

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

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

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!!!!!!

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?

Unfortunately the Arizona bills do not expressly include sound suppressors.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

@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!

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..

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!

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.

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!!!

They just passed it into law in Arizona

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

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.

Oops. Try this instead:

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill.asp?session=26&bill=SB146

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.

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

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

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

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

Florida’s bills died in committees

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

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

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

@Curt Gould you are correct about wv

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?

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.

Will, By any chance are you a Constitutional Attorney?

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.

Oregon HB 2796
http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb2700.dir/hb2796.intro.pdf

Will,

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

Chip

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.

Cmon ND

@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”