PDA

View Full Version : New Hampshire to Outlaw Federal Agents.


rp55
01-08-2010, 12:56 PM
From the cold Northeast come this interesting tidbit. They are upping the ante for state's rights.

http://www.publiusforum.com/2010/01/08/new-hampshire-makes-to-outlaw-federal-agents/

-By Warner Todd Huston

Imagine a state law that says that any federal agent that comes into said state and runs afoul of a new state law should be considered a felon! Well, that is what New Hampshire is about to do if HB1285 passes during the coming 2010 legislative session.

HB1285 is another one of those laws that exempts all firearms and firearms accessories that are made in a state from certain federal restrictions if they remain in that state. Several states have made attempts to implement these 10th Amendment laws and New Hampshire intends to be one of the next to do so.

Thus far Montana and Tennessee have passed their own firearms freedom acts and thirteen or so other states have introduced or are introducing laws that exempts local firearms industries and accessories as well as in-state firearms owners from overweening federal gun banning laws.

To be sure, these laws have not yet been challenged in a Supreme Court case and there is no doubt that they will be, but until that happens as each state passes its own firearms act exempting its in-state manufacturers and owners from federal laws we cannot help but expect an increasing amount of tension to build up between the states and the federal government as a result.

All that said there is an interesting aspect of the New Hampshire law that goes a step beyond that of other states, that being the aforementioned idea of making felons of federal agents that dare to try and implement federal firearms laws that conflict with the new state laws.

Here is section II. of the Penalty section of New Hampshire’s proposed new Lawful Commerce in Firearms law: (my emphasis)

II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

Interesting is it not? This law would make a felon of any federal agent that tries to implement a federal firearms law that conflicts with New Hampshire’s new firearms law. That is simply an astonishing flourish, is it not?

Whatever happens these laws are setting up a certain clash between the states and the federal government… unless the federal government follows the states to the same destination for firearms regulations, that is.

So, it’s a waiting game. Which will come first? Will the feds follow the states to the same firearm regulation conclusions or will the feds haul the states into court?

It ought to be an interesting few years in forearms law making.

professorhard
01-08-2010, 12:59 PM
Interesting...

Maltese Falcon
01-08-2010, 1:00 PM
It ought to be an interesting few years in firearms law making.

You are correct...once you go off the res...it's hard to go back.

.

Vtec44
01-08-2010, 1:09 PM
At least we know New Hampshire has the balls to do it.

shooting4life
01-08-2010, 1:18 PM
:popcorn::lurk5:

nhanson
01-08-2010, 1:31 PM
Sounds like they are setting up the feds for another Ruby Ridge or Waco, only this time the state will be in the gun fight......imagine headline "ATF FELONS IN ALL OUT GUN BATTLE WITH LACONIA PD, NH National Guard being considered by the Governor" --------Should be very interesting!

Purple K
01-08-2010, 1:43 PM
Standby to be amazed.

Racefiend
01-08-2010, 1:48 PM
This kind of stuff makes me proud to live in this country.

Kid Stanislaus
01-08-2010, 1:55 PM
Gutsy, to say the very least.

bulgron
01-08-2010, 1:57 PM
Any federal agents wanted on felony charges by the state of New Hampshire can, no doubt, seek sanctuary in California.

bsim
01-08-2010, 3:37 PM
It makes me wonder what's going on behind the scenes (that's not spoonfed to us in the news) that's making states take these actions.

We're seeing the results, but not the causes...

GrizzlyGuy
01-08-2010, 4:01 PM
It's an entirely different culture out in New Hampshire. Their state motto is "live free or die" and there is lots of pro-liberty activism going on (and they are always looking for more liberty-minded immigrants to move there and assist) (http://www.freestateproject.org/). The Ridley Report (http://ridleyreport.com/) is a fun way to tune into what's going on out there. Here is Ridley's report on this issue:

W3UMaCOLMrw

Another interesting story on Ridley (with many follow-up stories):

Furious gun owners will open carry to state house (http://ridleyreport.com/video/2009/dec/nh_furious_gun_owners_will_open_carry_state_house)

Note that they carry LOADED out there, usually even when furious. :D

dfletcher
01-08-2010, 4:06 PM
I wish Governor Thomson was around to see this ... :Angel_anim:

Hunt
01-08-2010, 4:10 PM
This kind of stuff makes me proud to live in this country.

NH home of the Free State Project as well

HkFan416
01-08-2010, 4:15 PM
Sounds like they are setting up the feds for another Ruby Ridge or Waco, only this time the state will be in the gun fight......imagine headline "ATF FELONS IN ALL OUT GUN BATTLE WITH LACONIA PD, NH National Guard being considered by the Governor" --------Should be very interesting!

I don't know why but that news headline made me ROFL. haha

Maltese Falcon
01-08-2010, 4:20 PM
It's an entirely different culture out in New Hampshire. Their state motto is "live free or die" and there is lots of pro-liberty activism going on (and they are always looking for more liberty-minded immigrants to move there and assist) (http://www.freestateproject.org/).

I have a "live free or die" sticker on my truck and would love to go....except for the snow...:o...My wife considers anything under 60F...cold.....

.

blacksheep
01-08-2010, 4:22 PM
Good the B.A.T.F.E is criminal organization IMO.

Suvorov
01-08-2010, 4:40 PM
It is very interesting and tends to skew traditional party lines. New Hampshire is a Blue state and has voted that way for a while, but while they send Obama to the White House, they are more than willing to defy Federal gun grabbers with more balls than many Red States have.

bballwizard05
01-08-2010, 4:46 PM
This is awesome.

Merle
01-08-2010, 4:49 PM
Wow. That definately is an assertion of "States Rights" and a reading of the 10th amendment.

mrrsquared79
01-08-2010, 6:29 PM
I wish people in CA would pull their heads out of their @$$e$ and realize how unconstitutional the laws they have passed are in addition to making rational decisions based on facts rather than emotions. But then again that may be asking for ice water in hell... :chris:

Super Spy
01-08-2010, 6:51 PM
I love this.....States finally having the balls to tell the Feds "Up Yours"

bodger
01-08-2010, 7:25 PM
I love this.....States finally having the balls to tell the Feds "Up Yours"



Damn right. If it wasn't for that kind of balls, we would have pictures of the queen on our money.

"Live Free Or Die"......ya gotta feel for the convicts in NH state prisons. Locked in the joint and stamping that on license plates all day. Suicide rate for lifers in NH prisons must be pretty hefty.

HowardW56
01-08-2010, 7:29 PM
Damn right. If it wasn't for that kind of balls, we would have pictures of the queen on our money.


:79:

GrizzlyGuy
01-08-2010, 7:40 PM
Damn right. If it wasn't for that kind of balls, we would have pictures of the queen on our money.

Wow. Had I not just claimed a new sig line from Asmodai earlier today (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3608038#post3608038), I'd claim that one. Well said Bodger! :cowboy:

yellowfin
01-08-2010, 9:01 PM
I love it! Added to the sting in this is that since the ATF agents are committing a felony, if they try to enforce the law and are carrying guns, they're then guilty of being armed while in the commission of a felony, so double the charges!

CitaDeL
01-08-2010, 9:05 PM
This kind of stuff makes me proud to live in this country.

I second that notion. Move to adopt?

Seesm
01-08-2010, 9:51 PM
Anything to help save America... :)

MP301
01-08-2010, 10:39 PM
We are living in interesting and entertaining times to say the least. Sad to say, however, that the Federal Government is a step up from what we have in Ca. Can we do the reverse here? hahahaah

dfletcher
01-08-2010, 11:15 PM
I have a "live free or die" sticker on my truck and would love to go....except for the snow...:o...My wife considers anything under 60F...cold.....



In Jan '81 (29 years ago this week actually) my best friend & I climbed Mt Washington. Weather so bad we had to hunker down overnight at about 5,000 feet. Doesn't sound too high up, but at -60 or so made for a chilly trip. Been in CA for 20 years now, still don't own anything heavier than a suitcoat.

Ron-Solo
01-08-2010, 11:16 PM
Good luck with that. What a waste of time. That law is unenforceable.

Maestro Pistolero
01-08-2010, 11:22 PM
Boy, this really establishes a tough negotiating position with the feds: "Here's our position, and if you, the federal government, violate it, you yourself will be sporting matching silver bracelets, and a free change of address!" Whew!

We are living in very interesting times. This Democratic Republic is vibrant and alive, IMO. And it's like 13 states now passing 10th amendment resolutions, interestingly the number of colonies that existed at the time of founding. 13 states is hardly an anomaly.

The SCOTUS cannot avoid noticing the temperature of the country on this issue. I wonder if, and how it will sway the upcoming opinions in McDonald???

jjperl
01-09-2010, 12:11 AM
Good! The fed needs to be put in it place.

Meplat
01-09-2010, 2:01 AM
Sounds like they are setting up the feds for another Ruby Ridge or Waco, only this time the state will be in the gun fight......imagine headline "ATF FELONS IN ALL OUT GUN BATTLE WITH LACONIA PD, NH National Guard being considered by the Governor" --------Should be very interesting!

Then the POTUS federalizes the national guard and the Guard has to choose. And the NG=militia argument evaporates. May you live in interesting times!:43:

bigcalidave
01-09-2010, 2:09 AM
Thankfully while we battle to get some rights back here in california, a dozen states will probably fix the problem at the federal level for all of us. We do still live in america, despite what it looks like around here. I can't WAIT till the feds call them on this move.

Meplat
01-09-2010, 2:15 AM
Good luck with that. What a waste of time. That law is unenforceable.

We will see!:rolleyes:

bulgron
01-09-2010, 2:33 AM
I can't WAIT till the feds call them on this move.

It won't take long for the feds to threaten to hold highway tax dollars hostage. Hopefully the states involved in this gamble have thought about what they're going to do when the feds lay down that trump card.

Critical
01-09-2010, 3:11 AM
Any federal agents wanted on felony charges by the state of New Hampshire can, no doubt, seek sanctuary in California.

hahaha I laughed out loud at that one..


Good for the state. I thought the ONLY reason federal government has anything to do with firearms is because of the second amendment. I never realized we signed over every aspect of our lives and freedom to them. As far as I'm concerned, any interference with anything firearm related is unconstitutional, not only because we have the rights to bear arms, but because we never authorized them to nit pick at this and that, let alone the other 99% of unconstitutional things they do now a days.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

kermit315
01-09-2010, 7:04 AM
It won't take long for the feds to threaten to hold highway tax dollars hostage. Hopefully the states involved in this gamble have thought about what they're going to do when the feds lay down that trump card.

yeah, kinda makes you wonder what they have up their sleeves on that, because I can almost guarantee that it has been taken into account. As much as this is a boon for states rights, most politicians still follow the money.

yellowfin
01-09-2010, 7:06 AM
The 16th amendment has effectively killed the 10th. Otherwise the states would have more money than the fed and couldn't be threatened with any kind of withholding.

Asmodai
01-09-2010, 7:20 AM
It won't take long for the feds to threaten to hold highway tax dollars hostage. Hopefully the states involved in this gamble have thought about what they're going to do when the feds lay down that trump card.

I doubt there are any Highway Tax Dollars left ;)

Roadrunner
01-09-2010, 8:02 AM
This has the potential for another American Civil War. As for highway taxes, I can see these states withholding taxes to the feds to compensate for the feds withholding highway taxes. One thing is certain, the cities can't exist without citizens, the states can't exist without cities, and the feds can't exist without states. The current perspective is completely backwards.

bulgron
01-09-2010, 8:38 AM
I doubt there are any Highway Tax Dollars left ;)

This is actually an interesting point. The more broke the Feds become, the less power they have?

In any case, the Feds have the ability to print all the money they want. They can also apply all the taxes they want, in particular to gasoline. So I'm sure they have all the highway tax dollars they might need to apply leverage to rebellious states.

What's that old saying? The power to tax is the power to destroy? Something like that?

Maestro Pistolero
01-09-2010, 9:37 AM
It won't take long for the feds to threaten to hold highway tax dollars hostage.
That's a two way street. Where do you suppose those highway tax dollars come from?

bulgron
01-09-2010, 10:16 AM
That's a two way street. Where do you suppose those highway tax dollars come from?

If you're suggesting that the states could somehow block-aid the federal government of money, I don't think it would work, mostly because I don't think the states are in a position to gate-keep federal tax dollars. For example, when I file my income taxes, I file those directly with the federal government; none of that money passes through Sacramento. I believe (but don't really know) that the same sort of thing happens with the federal gas taxes collected at the pumps.

Legasat
01-09-2010, 10:37 AM
I second that notion. Move to adopt?

I vote Aye!

Glad to see more States on board exercising States rights.

This has the potential for another American Civil War.

As sad as that sounds, I'm OK with the concept, if that's the only way to get the power back to the people.

Chatterbox
01-09-2010, 10:59 AM
We've been down this road before, in the 1960s. It's all internal political theater - "Look, we're standing up to the big bad Federal Government!". I assure you, at the prospect of actually doing something, all this bluster by state legislatures would melt away like the spring snow.

sreiter
01-09-2010, 11:00 AM
when i lived in MA. i met a lot of NH residents who claim it had plenty of draconian laws and was a police state

sreiter
01-09-2010, 11:02 AM
interesting how many people are on board with states rights, concidering we are to to take California's away

Fjold
01-09-2010, 11:12 AM
interesting how many people are on board with states rights, concidering we are to to take California's away

Yep. you have to recognize the basic invidual's egocentric nature. I want what I want regardless of the hypocrisy involved.

Maestro Pistolero
01-09-2010, 11:13 AM
If you're suggesting that the states could somehow block-aid the federal government of money, I don't think it would work, mostly because I don't think the states are in a position to gate-keep federal tax dollars. For example, when I file my income taxes, I file those directly with the federal government; none of that money passes through Sacramento. I believe (but don't really know) that the same sort of thing happens with the federal gas taxes collected at the pumps.

Federal fuel taxes (which fund highways) are collected by suppliers in each state, sent to the IRS, then Washington where they decides who gets what. If states were to require that both state and federal fuel taxes (which are assessed at the same time) were to be sent by suppliers first to the state, then the federal portion forwarded by the state to the IRS, then the state would have control.

Telperion
01-09-2010, 11:22 AM
This is pointless bluster. If an agent is charged by New Hampshire, he will pull a Horiuchi and invoke 42 USC 1442(a)(1) and get the case moved to Federal Court, where he will motion to have charges dismissed under qualified immunity.

(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

Basically, Federal agents have extraterritoriality against the states when acting in their official capacity. The Feds could also, I suppose, make a habeas petition for their own man to do the same thing. If New Hampshire rebuffed these, then things could get "interesting" but that is almost completely unlikely at this point in history...

Hopi
01-09-2010, 11:34 AM
interesting how many people are on board with states rights, concidering we are to to take California's away

Interesting. The constitution works both ways; the states can't violate it, nor can the feds.


When the states want to violate the constitution, the Feds step in. When the Feds want to violate the constitution, the states step in. Shouldn't it work that way?

Sgt Raven
01-09-2010, 12:11 PM
Good luck with that. What a waste of time. That law is unenforceable.

It would a shame if y'all lost your immunity and were criminally liable for your mistakes like everyone else. :rolleyes:

Sgt Raven
01-09-2010, 12:22 PM
The 16th amendment has effectively killed the 10th. Otherwise the states would have more money than the fed and couldn't be threatened with any kind of withholding.

How do the Feds get their money, who does your employer send your withholding to? If your taxes are washed through the state FTB then what's to keep them from not sending it on? California only get 70-75% of what it sends, so we'd be better off keeping it all and spending it here. :p

sreiter
01-09-2010, 12:22 PM
Interesting. The constitution works both ways; the states can't violate it, nor can the feds.


When the states want to violate the constitution, the Feds step in. When the Feds want to violate the constitution, the states step in. Shouldn't it work that way?

exactly what do you see the feds violating, and what is the state?

the crux of the argument is which level of gov has the right to determine firearms laws.

he in Cali, we want incorporation so we can have all the weapons we want..machine guns, whatever (or at least I DO) and wwe want the tate to have no in our firearms, basically say the constitution have final say.

in NH they want the fed to have zero say in firearms and they want full state rights control

would you contend the fed has no constitutional authority to pass laws like the NFA ?

if they do, then the fed is within its rights to prosecute anyone in possition of a MG NH - states have no say

Sgt Raven
01-09-2010, 12:32 PM
exactly what do you see the feds violating, and what is the state?

the crux of the argument is which level of gov has the right to determine firearms laws.

he in Cali, we want incorporation so we can have all the weapons we want..machine guns, whatever (or at least I DO) and wwe want the tate to have no in our firearms, basically say the constitution have final say.

in NH they want the fed to have zero say in firearms and they want full state rights control

would you contend the fed has no constitutional authority to pass laws like the NFA ?

if they do, then the fed is within its rights to prosecute anyone in possition of a MG NH - states have no say

No NH is saying the Feds have no say in firearms that haven't been in Interstate Commerce. Since a lot of these laws invoke the Commerce Clause.

Hopi
01-09-2010, 1:22 PM
would you contend the fed has no constitutional authority to pass laws like the NFA ?



My opinion is that the Fed has no constitutional authority to pass laws like the NFA.

The Heller-modified Miller test includes 'in common use'...legally, the question of what constitutes 'in common use' has not been answered. There is speculation that 'in common use' will include any firearms more common than the specific firearm from Heller. That bodes well for the unraveling of the NFA far down the line in legal challenges. We'll see how it unfolds.

Further, and as mentioned above, the commerce clause is the real devil here.....

Roadrunner
01-09-2010, 2:34 PM
When it comes to the definition of common use, how can a weapon be in common use if it's outlawed? I think that should also be addressed.

loather
01-09-2010, 2:41 PM
California only get 70-75% of what it sends, so we'd be better off keeping it all and spending it here. :p

You sure about that? Our wise and great legislature will find something meaningless, pointless, and expensive to spend that money on and it'll be squandered away just like all our taxes are now.To fix the tax problem, we need to fix the spending problem. With all the nanny state provisions that keep cropping up, and the people being in support of them doesn't help anything. It's a fundamental education of responsibility problem at this point: people need to be taught that the government isn't there to provide for them. We provide for the government, and in return get basic services and protection from foreign threats. Anything else is abuse of governmental power.

Sgt Raven
01-09-2010, 3:00 PM
You sure about that? Our wise and great legislature will find something meaningless, pointless, and expensive to spend that money on and it'll be squandered away just like all our taxes are now.To fix the tax problem, we need to fix the spending problem. With all the nanny state provisions that keep cropping up, and the people being in support of them doesn't help anything. It's a fundamental education of responsibility problem at this point: people need to be taught that the government isn't there to provide for them. We provide for the government, and in return get basic services and protection from foreign threats. Anything else is abuse of governmental power.

Well how many of your friends talk about the big tax return they're getting and what they can buy with it? Do they know they've been loaning the Gov that money all year for free?

CCWFacts
01-09-2010, 7:11 PM
Good for them! I don't know if this law will be enforceable in practice but I'm glad they are trying it. It's good to see quite a few states are attempting to opt out of Federal firearms regulation in various ways. I hope this becomes a trend.

GrizzlyGuy
01-09-2010, 7:20 PM
I have a "live free or die" sticker on my truck and would love to go....except for the snow...:o...My wife considers anything under 60F...cold......

Dohhh! That's too bad. We get more snow up here than NH does. But, not as cold up here. My wife was psyched up for less snow, NH properties/prices were looking good, the Free Staters (http://www.freestateproject.org/) were helping us with the property search... but their lower temps have (unfortunately) caused my wife to lower NH to our #2 move-to destination behind NV. :(

Oh well, she might change her mind again. It's been known to happen... :rolleyes:

CCWFacts
01-09-2010, 7:37 PM
This is actually an interesting point. The more broke the Feds become, the less power they have?

Yes.

In any case, the Feds have the ability to print all the money they want.

If they continue on this insane economic path and collapse the dollar, they will be left with basically no power.

This is pointless bluster. If an agent is charged by New Hampshire, he will pull a Horiuchi and invoke 42 USC 1442(a)(1) and get the case moved to Federal Court, where he will motion to have charges dismissed under qualified immunity. Basically, Federal agents have extraterritoriality against the states when acting in their official capacity.

I agree, it's mainly symbolic. I don't see how they can possibly enforce it. I'm still glad they are doing it.