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
@Linda
Go here for more on the subject of jury rights: http://fija.org/
You are correct we have more choices than guilty or not guilty. Have the right to judge the law as being constitutional.
@Linda
Go here for more on the subject of jury rights: http://fija.org/
You are correct we have more choices than guilty or not guilty. Have the right to judge the law as being constitutional.
@Jeremy
There can be no Nazi’s with out the genocide. Why do you think that The Georgia Guidestones – Reduced population to 500 million some powerful people don’t want just anyone using up “their” resources.
ND should have it
@Vincent
We have no firearms manufacturers. Hence, it would be worthless. Still, I think the states should get together and abolish the 1934 NFA/GCA.
Colorado was one state that has a democratic senate and of course they would vote it down. It won’t pass until we get a senate and house who take the oath to protect & defend the constitution that it will pass.
Praying it becomes a reality in PA.
I just listened to Gary’s interview on Fox News, and he made a point about interstate commerce that I think is wrong, and undercuts his arguments. First, for the record, though I am a strong 2nd ammendment rights advocate, constitution advocate for that matter, I do not own a gun. I simply value the implications of such clear and fundamental constitutional rights, and I do think about buying a gun and learning to use it expertly from time to time. Now, here’s the point:
Gary accepted the premise that if someone from Idaho buys a gun in Montana and then brings it back to Idaho, that interstate commerce has then occurred, and under current law the law would have been broken. I disagree. To his credit, he is making this distinction from the Montana resident who buys a bun and stays in Montana, in order to facilitate his legal challenge, but I think he should not throw out the larger argument in pursuit of his narrower interpretation. Here’s my rationale: The word ‘commerce’ is different than the word ‘transportation’. If that person in Idaho orders the gun over the phone or internet from a supplier in montana and it is shipped to him in Idaho thus he takes posession of the gun in idaho, that’s interstate commerce, because part of the transaction took place in two different states. On the other hand, and this is key, if that person in Idaho drives to Montana, buys the gun in Montana, and takes possession of it in Montana, then all of the transaction, all of the commerce, has occurred in Montana. If that guy from Idaho then drives back to Idaho with the gun, that is simply transportation, not commerce. The commerce ended with the completion of the transaction and transfer of possession in Montana. There are all sorts of other laws on other issues that make this possession point, and it seems quite logical to me.
The word ‘interstate’ is only one of the key words in that portion of the constitution. The word ‘commerce’ has its own distinct meaning, and is another key word. Both should be considered. Now, I understand if Gary doesn’t want to push his luck, and goes for the smaller victory, though I disagree and believe he should argue for the truth fully, but if he does go for the smaller victory, he should take care with his words so as not to weaken a future case on the larger meaning of that portion of the constitution.
To sum it up, once the gun transaction is completed and transfer of possession has occurred, the ‘commerce’ has been completed. The new gun owner can take that gun with him wherever he moves or travels, as he sees fit, as long as he doesn’t break other laws out there… but then many of those other laws might be worthy of debate as well, and that’s another topic altogether.
I hope someone who reads this brings it to Gary’s attention.
Thank you.
If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons made Rosie O’ Donnell fat!
While we’re not making any guns in Hawaii, we suffer from some of the most hanious politicians ever and our guns laws are non-existent. Further more, just about every facet of our lifestyle is shipped in from Washington, Oregon, and California.
I’m not part of any organization, but write my state representatives often. How can I go about officially introducing this bill in Hawaii?
Aloha!
Brandon
This is a GREAT post! I hope you not mind.I published an excerpt on the site and linked back to your own blog for people to read the full version. Thanks for your advice.
@Ck ever heard of gunsmiths?
@Nathan Excellent Deductions… and Great Comments…I could not agree more…!
Once the ‘Transaction’ is complete in whatever state your bill of sale was made… what the owner of <said Weapon does and or goes.. with Said Weapon… is secondary to the issues of the 'Transaction/Commerce'… The the Seller is no longer Responsible once the Gun and Money has Exchanged Hands.. Commerce Has Been Completed..Deal Done! Owner of Transaction is then Free to take Purchase where ever he/she chooses.. a cording to permit and or state laws.
@Steve in NC
Steve, where do you live in NC? Glen Bradley introduced ours in the NC house…do help support him at http://www.GlenBradley2012.com
NC is not the best state for this…read Article I section IV and V of the NC constitution and you’ll see why.
I live in Burlington BTW
@Nathan
Your comment sparked a curiosity about the legalistic definitions of the word commerce and in pursuing the idea I found an excellent article in the St. John’s law review concerning the matter.
http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson/articles/Commerce%20Clause.pdf
While it is subject to human error,(What is perfect right?) it does tend to open up the larger vista as to what the writers of the constitution meant when they included the term in the document, mercantile transactions as you point out in your post or the larger scope of economic activity as the mentioned Professor Crosskey has argued it does. I would say from the research presented, it would be very likely that a strict reading of the constitution would mean the commerce clause would indicate a very narrow definition of what commerce is.
The only thing that concerns me is the wording in HB 246 is that the bill explicitly states that the articles in question remain within the boundaries of the State of Montana to be free from any requirements. Thus, while it is not the whole kit and kaboddle, Mr. Marbut’s comment stays consistent with the wording in the bill.
I would also guess the bill was written in this way to avert a Mann Act type response, in which transportation is tied in with the commerce and thus regulated by the federal government.
One issue with this approach is that we have to have all these separate manufacturers in each state. What is a gun? Can we make “most” of a particular kind of gun in one state, “most” of a particular kind of gun in another state, and so on, trade them, and then finish the final production and stamp the state’s insignia on the gun in the state we want to sell it in?
The states are stepping up to reclaim their sovereignty EXCEPT when and where they want Fed interference. Like with Montana’s med cannabis law allowing it’s use!
Check out the latest govt intrusion on state’s rights. http://www.mtcia.org
I forgot to make the connection of fed interference between med cannabis and our gun rights.
@ck
Pass this and see how quickly someone opens up a plant to make them. It will be profitable and left alone by the feds.
I live in Washington State. I would love for someone to e-mail me the proposed legislation that my state has to follow the FFA. I am dieing for the day it passes here. As I own several firearms made in Washington. Every time I have brought it up the clowns in the state capitol tell me no. And I am just a voting citizen.
States should control what happens within their respective borders.