The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is sweeping the Nation.

Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

Following initial Montana enactment, clones of the Firearms Freedom Act have subsequently been enacted in Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota, and other clones have been introduced in the legislatures of twenty-some other states.

The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise.

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
  1. Linda
    May 28th, 2010 at 15:59 | #1

    @eaglesnester
    No, Montana needs to have its firearms manufactured, sold and stay in Montana as with the other green states in order for the “Commerce Clause” remain a moot point.

  2. Linda
    May 28th, 2010 at 16:05 | #2

    @RossD
    Ok, then we can outlaw cars because they kill more people than guns ever did kill by accidents..of course, we all know we will be victims to gun toting criminals but maybe we can talk them out of shooting us in the head?

  3. Linda
    May 28th, 2010 at 17:20 | #3

    This is not about guns but it could be linked to the anti-gun laws.
    During the Prohibition juries refused to convict anyone accused of liquor possession, sales or consumption which cause the Prohibition laws to fail due to lack of enforceability.
    It is very important to our country and Constitution that citizens are aware of their right as jurors and Grand Jurors to reach a verdict of not guilty when the law is Un-Constitutional because a law that is not Constitutional is null and void as if it never existed from its’ inception. The rights and duties of the jurors and Grand Jurors is one of the main reasons this is a Republic.
    Many judges will tell the jurors that they have to reach a verdict based on the written law at the time of the alleged offense(s), which is not true but it is true the courts have been usurping the powers and duties of the jurors and Grand Jurors over the decades especially since the Prohibition when the jurors knew their rights and duties and the fact that un-Constitutional laws are not laws at all.
    Juries and Grand Jurors are not required to give reasons for their verdict. Nullification of laws that are not laws is not only legal but it is the duty of the jurors and Grand Jurors because that is an essential if not vital part of the systems of checks and balances…Redman, Jury Nullification on youtube.com but there are other sources.
    Hope this helps to education many citizens and bring our country back to the shining example of freedom it was meant to be.
    Michael Badnarik has Constitutional courses on youtube.com also.
    God bless and take care.

  4. Steve
    June 1st, 2010 at 04:29 | #4

    “No, Montana needs to have its firearms manufactured, sold and stay in Montana as with the other green states in order for the “Commerce Clause” remain a moot point.”

    That’s not correct. It’s true that if we can get current perversion of Commerce Clause thinking corrected even back to that point, it will be a boon to us over our servants, but even THAT view trusts the feds with far more power than was originally intended. It was pretty much intended to keep states from preventing commerce between their citizens and those of other states, creating tariffs on interstate trade and so on, and that was about it.

  5. Steve
    June 1st, 2010 at 04:31 | #5

    IOW, Wickard v. Filburn and it’s illegitimate spawn are, regrettably, the law of the land for the moment, but don’t confuse that with those decisions being “correct” from a moral, logical, or Constitutional point of view.

  6. Jill Infidel
    June 6th, 2010 at 23:45 | #6

    @Linda don’t leave out doctors… hospital mistakes kill a lot of people – including my daughter!

  7. Publius
    June 7th, 2010 at 02:31 | #7

    Steve,

    I would humbly refer you to Federalist 78, specifically the following:

    “Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. ”

    We all know Wickard v. Filburn was a horrible decision and completely contrary to the Constitutional idea of regulation of interstate commerce. I submit to you the following: The Supreme Court can do NOTHING to enforce such a decision. In regards to this decision in particular and SCOTUS (and any court, for that matter) decisions in general, none of this hand-wringing necessary. We simply behave as if it never happened.

    - P.

  8. Mark
    June 7th, 2010 at 06:07 | #8

    Linda and Publis, thank you both for your educated and relevant postings, it is refreshing to see folks like you posting, rather than the liberal rhetoric spewing bottom dwellers who can’t wait to disarm us, so they can prey upon us.

  9. Santini
    June 9th, 2010 at 15:03 | #9

    From Fortune magazine, April 12 2010, page 102:

    “…[W]ater that’s packaged and sold in the same state — about 70% of the bottled water sold in the U.S. — is exempt from federal regulation [from EPA and FDA] because it doesn’t cross state lines….”

    If we are a nation of Laws, they must be applied consistently, in adherence with the Constitution. Let’s pray all states pass a Firearms Freedom Act!

  10. Rick Mathews
    June 12th, 2010 at 13:05 | #10

    One more step of thr federal government infriging om our god given rights…

  11. Mark
    July 11th, 2010 at 14:48 | #11

    There is no need to spend money and time on legislation and lawsuits. The law (Constitution) is already in place. The 50 states need to stand up, utilize the nullification process and make null and void the federal laws that are repugnant to the Constitution as Jefferson and Madison envisioned in 1798.

  12. July 14th, 2010 at 02:30 | #12

    WEll said mark.

  13. July 14th, 2010 at 23:24 | #13

    Good gun rights polls:http://www.patriotslist.com/polls/all/index.php?poll=51

  14. July 21st, 2010 at 13:42 | #14

    This link must be read by anyone and everyone who wishes to have this movement succeed:

    http://www.originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php

Comment pages
1 ... 4 5 6 3
  1. No trackbacks yet.