The Growing Movement to Nullify Federal Gun Laws
06. Nov, 2009 
15 Comments
by Chuck Baldwin
According to a report published on the Tenth Amendment Center’s web site, “Introduced in the Ohio House on October 16, 2009, the ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ (HB-315) seeks ‘To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words “Made in Ohio” be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio.’”
The report went on to say, “While the HB315’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:
“‘The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.’
“Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.”
See the report here.
Two states have already passed their own Firearms Freedom Acts: Montana and Tennessee. And, along with Ohio, at least 7 other states have introduced similar bills. Those states are Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.
More information regarding the status of these State bills can be seen here.
As you might suspect, the federal government doesn’t take too kindly to these State laws. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) sent an open letter to all Montana and Tennessee firearms dealers denouncing the State laws. ATF assistant director Carson Carroll wrote that “Federal law supersedes the Act.”
The Tenth Amendment Center quotes constitutional historian Kevin Gutzman as correctly stating, “Their [ATF's] view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.
“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”
Ah! But that’s just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades–so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, “No.” And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to “draw a line in the sand” for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
At the end of the day, the Second Amendment was never about hunting or target shooting. It has always been about protecting the people and states against federal tyranny.
The Second Amendment itself states, “A well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis added.) Note that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to insure “the security of a FREE STATE.” (Emphasis added.) “Free from what?” you ask. Free from federal tyranny. Free from an overbearing, encroaching, heavy-handed, would-be national government.
The founders–even the Centralists of the day–all acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms was, first of all, for the protection of the people against government tyranny. Observe:
“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Number 29)
“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” (Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville [NC] Gazette, October 12, 1789)
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson)
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? . . . Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . [T]he 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.” (Tench Coxe, ally of James Madison and member of the Continental Congress, Freeman’s Journal, February 20, 1778)
Coxe also said, “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the 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 next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789)
So, for now, 10 states have proposed–and 2 have passed–a Firearms Freedom Act, properly declaring that federal authority granted in the Constitution regarding interstate commerce cannot apply to products (firearms, in this case) that are manufactured and sold within the territory of each respective State. In other words, 10 States are serving notice to Washington, D.C., that they are going to insist that the federal government stop ignoring the Constitution of the United States.
In the same vein, Tennessee State legislator Susan Lynn recently sent an open letter to the State legislative bodies of the other 49 states stating:
“On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
• Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
• Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
• Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
• Seek repeal of the assumption of the powers and the imposed mandates.”
In the body of her letter, Rep. Lynn states, “The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.”
The Tennessee State representative continued by saying, “The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
“With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty–and unconstitutional.”
This is a battle that is just beginning to heat up, but promises to get red-hot in the not-too-distant future. As for me and my house, we believe this showdown is long overdue. To quote Patrick Henry, “Let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!”
Chuck Baldwin is a radio broadcaster, syndicated columnist, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the Constitution Party’s Nominee for president in 2008. Visit his website at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
Copyright © 2009 Chuck Baldwin
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
I wish people would get a clue about what "Regulate interstate commerce" means. It meant that the Central Govt was to regulate or to use a more familiar word today "encourage" commerce between the states. NOT tie the states down with every law imaginable, to intrude on the states right of sovereignty. Which is why we are in the mess were in now. Simply knowing the rules (Constitution) goes along way. It would be like trying to play baseball without knowing to run to first base after you hit the ball. Please study the rules.
Great point! It was to make commerce "regular" and prevent barriers – not as an excuse to enact prohibition – whether it's prohibiting your right to own a gun, or your right to own a plant, or your right to choose who you'd like to purchase health care from…
I hate this language in the Ohio bill,
“‘The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition."
because it implies and adds a sense of legitimacy to the false and dangerous doctrine of unlimited federal preemption, on this and any other issue. In other words, the language at least tacitly endorses the doctrine which states that Congress has power to, at the moment of its choosing, "occupy the field," and "intend a complete ouster (of state and local power)." This particular bill, therefore, is very poorly worded in my opinion.
(comment continues below)
Susan Lynn does a much better job in the following statements:
“The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. …"
Period. None of this "the U.S. Congress hasn't [yet] expressly preempted state law, BUT (by implication) we're not denying that it has this power, which it may assert whensoever it chooses to weild it over these states and their citizens, the consequences of which denial are too much for us to bear contemplating. Signed, the faithful and obedient slaves to our masters the all-powerful federal government, the Ohio legislature." b.s.
Let us not forget, the representatives that are in DC come from the states. If we send the right ones ( 2 senators, how ever many congressman) that would help get DC back in line. We should be able to fire those that do not represent the people. WE CAN CLEAN OUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, one state at a time. Stop voting for the party and vote for the man/woman that represents your beliefs. Remember also the movie Ants, there were way more ants than grasshoppers.
We are the government, made up by our relatives and family members. You cannot separate us from them as well you cannot separate Church from State. If 95% believe in GOD then how come we let the 5% tell us when and where we can talk about him?
I say we go way beyond the thought process of national parties…and ignore d.c. altogether…
Well, it's kind of hard to ignore someone who's in your face all of the time. But I get your point, sure.
I have been reading the Democrats health care reform bill and the republicans alternative.
And I am having a real hard time understanding how either one of these bills will place any acceptable limits on big Government.
Fighting over which of these federal parties is to have this amount of power over our lives, will still give us a centralized totalitarian government that is out of control.
I am also likewise having a real hard time understanding, which of these is actually worse, voting for people who do not read the bills that they are signing, or voting for people who do, but don’t give a damn about any of our Constitutions.
JMB – you hit the nail on the head…..opposing the democrats isn't enough. Because we're left with the other big-government political party, the republicans!
You mean the republicrats.
On a minor detail related to the Second, keep in mind that the original definition of "Militia" was "all able-bodied male citizens" in a given geographical area, be that city, county, or State.
These militia were to provide their own arms and act as an armed force for vaious circumstances. Defense of the area if needed or just simply the capture of a certain criminal element. The "Posses" of teh Old West would be an excellent example of a working militia.
Today of course, we include the ladies in the definition as well. A goodly number are better shots than most men!