PDA

View Full Version : Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment


Liberty1
11-13-2009, 8:44 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/kentucky-nullification.html

In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.

The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”

While the FFA’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. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:

“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”


NULLIFICATION

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.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

Read the rest of the article


November 13, 2009

Legasat
11-13-2009, 9:07 AM
This gives me hope.

Shotgun Man
11-13-2009, 9:13 AM
It's ironic-- here in CA, we are looking to the for feds for relief from CA's own oppressive laws.

Roadrunner
11-13-2009, 9:38 AM
I have several burning questions about this such as what happens if the owner decides s/he wants to take their firearm out of state. Do the feds then have jurisdiction since the firearm was transported out of the state it was manufactured in? Will companies be able to set up factories in various states to produce firearms in those states and not be worried about the feds claiming jurisdiction. What if a person wants a firearm made exclusively in a particular state. Can a private sale and transfer be made? I understand that states are "fed" up with federal regulations and the continuous intrusion by the the feds, and this is a way of protesting against those intrusions, but will this just create other restrictions that people may regret later on?

civilsnake
11-13-2009, 9:43 AM
Tennessee's version of this law went into effect recently. BATF basically said "we don't give a poopie" and plans to continue enforcing NFA laws.

The issue is that the Feds can claim Interstate Commerce does apply because there is a potential for these firearms to leave the state. The precedent for this was established in a case of medical marijuana growers getting their crop destroyed despite California state law saying it was legal to grow for personal use.

stag1500
11-13-2009, 4:08 PM
It's ironic-- here in CA, we are looking to the for feds for relief from CA's own oppressive laws.

Yes and no. This is something the feds should have done from the time California joined the union. What's ironic is that now it's actually happening.

dustoff31
11-13-2009, 4:22 PM
I have several burning questions about this such as what happens if the owner decides s/he wants to take their firearm out of state. Do the feds then have jurisdiction since the firearm was transported out of the state it was manufactured in?

Yep.

Will companies be able to set up factories in various states to produce firearms in those states and not be worried about the feds claiming jurisdiction.

Maybe, but I would be concerned that a single entity, having operations in several states would probably trigger the interstate commerce clause.


What if a person wants a firearm made exclusively in a particular state. Can a private sale and transfer be made?

No. Shipping a gun out of the state it was made in becomes interstate commerce.

Doug L
11-13-2009, 5:42 PM
Quote:
What if a person wants a firearm made exclusively in a particular state. Can a private sale and transfer be made?

No. Shipping a gun out of the state it was made in becomes interstate commerce.

I believe he's asking: If a firearm is made exclusively in a particular state, can one then conduct a private sale and transfer in that same state?

It sounds like the answer would be yes, unless that sale and transfer would violate the law of that particular state.

dustoff31
11-13-2009, 7:08 PM
I believe he's asking: If a firearm is made exclusively in a particular state, can one then conduct a private sale and transfer in that same state?

It sounds like the answer would be yes, unless that sale and transfer would violate the law of that particular state.

Yes. As long as it remains in the state it was manufactured in.

FeuerFrei
11-13-2009, 7:43 PM
I love Kentucky.

Roadrunner
11-14-2009, 9:55 AM
Yes. As long as it remains in the state it was manufactured in.

And that's my point. It's a great idea if all of the states told the feds that they will not allow them to control commerce between the states, but until this happens, the feds will maintain the upper hand. The one thing we have to remember is that the federal government exists because of the states, not the reverse. Until the states put the feds in their place, it will remain this way.

yellowfin
11-14-2009, 2:07 PM
^ And that is accomplished by adding to such laws as Montana did that any ATF or other federal officers trying to force regulation on intrastate sales of guns or ammo or suppressors made in the same state would be arrested, prosecuted as a criminal offense, and punished by the state. That is the teeth needed for such laws to matter. A few other states have anti gun LE action as criminal offenses. It is a 2nd or 3rd degree misdemeanor in Pennsylvania and a 1st degree in Texas.

Meplat
11-14-2009, 7:48 PM
The need for these actions demonstrates the perversion to which our legislature has degraded. The constitution superseded the articles of confederation largely because interstate commerce was being impaired. Now the commerce clause is being used to stifle interstate commerce.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/kentucky-nullification.html

kcbrown
11-14-2009, 8:28 PM
The need for these actions demonstrates the perversion to which our legislature has degraded. The constitution superseded the articles of confederation largely because interstate commerce was being impaired. Now the commerce clause is being used to stifle interstate commerce.

And if the Senate were still appointed by the states rather than elected by the population, things might not have come to this.

Or they might have anyway. Hard to say.

yellowfin
11-14-2009, 9:07 PM
It could possibly be worse as the prevailing tendancy towards DC insider-ism would be internally magnified.

Chatterbox
11-14-2009, 9:24 PM
^ And that is accomplished by adding to such laws as Montana did that any ATF or other federal officers trying to force regulation on intrastate sales of guns or ammo or suppressors made in the same state would be arrested, prosecuted as a criminal offense, and punished by the state. That is the teeth needed for such laws to matter. A few other states have anti gun LE action as criminal offenses. It is a 2nd or 3rd degree misdemeanor in Pennsylvania and a 1st degree in Texas.

Supremacy clause.

yellowfin
11-14-2009, 9:49 PM
Supremacy clause and 10th Amendment contradict each other irreconcilably.

Chatterbox
11-14-2009, 10:04 PM
Supremacy clause and 10th Amendment contradict each other irreconcilably.

Not at all - if there is a conflict between federal and state, the supremacy clause is active. If there is no conflict, tenth amendment applies. The problem you're having (I think) is not with the supremacy clause per se, but with the application of commerce clause.

yellowfin
11-15-2009, 5:39 AM
And the fact that they assert the supremacy clause much the same way that racial supremacists assert their idea of supremacy.

nicki
11-16-2009, 2:31 AM
Okay, I will buy that the US Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme law of the land, but as far as a "Supremacy Clause", give me a break.

The concept of the Feds having unlimited jurisdiction because of the "Commerce Clause" is a court created power grab.

The best thing I see coming from this movement is our opportunity to educate people and have people question what I call questionable "authority".

Most Americans are totally clueless about our history, what our relationship with government is supposed to be.

Nullification is something that is not being taught in the government run schools.

A big concern for many Americans is that when we talk about state's rights, they flash back to the days prior to the Civil rights act when many of them had no rights.

Nicki

a1c
11-16-2009, 10:50 AM
I see. Kentucky is all for free intra and interstate commerce for firearms, but not for booze. Talk about double standards.

sfwdiy
11-16-2009, 11:06 AM
Tennessee's version of this law went into effect recently. BATF basically said "we don't give a poopie" and plans to continue enforcing NFA laws.

The issue is that the Feds can claim Interstate Commerce does apply because there is a potential for these firearms to leave the state. The precedent for this was established in a case of medical marijuana growers getting their crop destroyed despite California state law saying it was legal to grow for personal use.

You're thinking of Gonzales V. Raich. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) That case actually didn't set the precedent. It simply furthered the abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The precedent was set in Wickard V. Filburn. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) Links go to Wikipedia, you can read all about it.

--B