get ready to call your lawmakers!

[mojo]

Any updates? Hopefully a few new co-sponsors?

[WhiteFeather]

Ohio has introduced this bill as well.

Lots of back ground info here along the lawsuit in MT

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/

Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act

by Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009

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 at:
http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-ohio

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 at:
http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa

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.”

See Rep. Lynn’s letter at:
http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-rep-lynn

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!”

Note the map is changing colors as more states are attempting to move toward more Freedom

[tsafa]

I have looked though the last 14 pages. Most of the discussion assumes that people know what this bill is and means. Still not clear to me, although I have picked up a few hints. Can some one please explain it in layman's terms so I don't miss anything or make assumptions. Thanks.

[mojo]

Originally Posted by tsafa

I have looked though the last 14 pages. Most of the discussion assumes that people know what this bill is and means. Still not clear to me, although I have picked up a few hints. Can some one please explain it in layman's terms so I don't miss anything or make assumptions. Thanks.

Basically this is testing the Commerce Laws. Our grant founders tried to layout a framework where anything produced in a state and didn't travel interstate was not under the control of the Federal Government. Since around 1930, the fed has been weakening these laws. They have been overstepping their bounds since. The bill uses tries to push back on the FED and gain their state sovereignty back. It uses Firearms as a vehicle, because that is one area where the FED has definitely overstepped their bounds.

[BSH]

Originally Posted by Tennessee State Rep Susan Lynn

“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."

I agree with this paragraph, except the first sentence (bold is mine). The supremacy clause expressly gives US laws enacted pursuant to constitutional authority superiority, "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The problem provoking these "firearms freedom" or "state sovereignty" acts is that Congress is enacting laws, the President is signing and enforcing them, and the courts are upholding them, all outside and beyond the powers granted to the United States government in the constitution. The states wouldn't need such measures, and the commoners would never utter the word "secession" if the Federal government was acting inside the boundaries set for it by the constitution.

These state sovereignty measures are a good response to Federal overreaching. Basically, the states have to put themselves in the position of defending people who violate Federal laws, and have to ignore US court decisions, in order to attempt to uphold the constitution. The Feds aren't going to uphold the constitution, so somebody has to step up...

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by BSH

I agree with this paragraph, except the first sentence (bold is mine). The supremacy clause expressly gives US laws enacted pursuant to constitutional authority superiority, "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The problem provoking these "firearms freedom" or "state sovereignty" acts is that Congress is enacting laws, the President is signing and enforcing them, and the courts are upholding them, all outside and beyond the powers granted to the United States government in the constitution. The states wouldn't need such measures, and the commoners would never utter the word "secession" if the Federal government was acting inside the boundaries set for it by the constitution.

These state sovereignty measures are a good response to Federal overreaching. Basically, the states have to put themselves in the position of defending people who violate Federal laws, and have to ignore US court decisions, in order to attempt to uphold the constitution. The Feds aren't going to uphold the constitution, so somebody has to step up...

In laymen terms, invoking the 10th amendment.

[mcmcallister]

i wish the bill included auto's

[WhiteFeather]

Originally Posted by tsafa

I have looked though the last 14 pages. Most of the discussion assumes that people know what this bill is and means. Still not clear to me, although I have picked up a few hints. Can some one please explain it in layman's terms so I don't miss anything or make assumptions. Thanks.

WATCH THE CCN VIDEO on web site

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/

LOTS more information about FFA in general is available here on a nation wide effort.
So please take the time to read about FFA and purpose for it here, also watch CCN video, it answers some basic questions about FFA.

As to the 14 pages of this thread.

1st part of thread was about the concept - proposed intro.

Second part was getting co sponsorship. more Reps signed on = equal greater change on moving. Note there was more info on PAFOA at the time than anyplace, anywhere available on FFA in PA.

3rd part of talk about possibility of what FFA "could" mean to PA.

4th part is introduction of bill along with text.

5th part hasn't really started yet.
It’s about doing something personally to get this passed, just hoping something like this will happen, IT WON’T. Just Wishing, counting on someone else to get this past, nothing will happen. Don’t do anything, this bill will NOT move out of Judiciary committee, IT will NOT get a vote, it will DIE there without action at end of this session fall of 2010. IF after CARFEULLY studying FFA you want this passed, get active, starting contacting Reps listed back in this thread somewhere. Ask them to become co sponsors and urge them to get this up for a vote. This we all can do or .........

6th part read 5th part again and take action while you can

People want to start off running, all journey’s start with a single step with efforts like FFA, this country was started when the government came to take the guns, this has the potential to use guns rights as a way to get back states rights under the 9th and 10th amendment, reign in the Feds, without firing a shot to get the country back using the Constitution while we still can before ........

Reading many of your post, lots of you understand this concept about the importance of state rights and your Freedoms, states have to start protecting US from the Feds way over stepping their Constitutional restraints, if they won't then it falls on US to speak up, while we still can.

WE all have for to long gave our slient constent to the "T" word to "a long train of abuses and ursurpations, pursuing invariably the same Oject envinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism". DOI quote

Why, because most people "are more disposed to suffer, while evils was sufferable"

[andrewjs18]

just got an email 5 minutes ago from my rep..he's now co-sponsoring.

Here's the email his secretary wrote:
Hi Andrew,

I'm Rep. Micozzie's secretary and he asked that I send you a quick email letting you know he was added to House Bill 1988 as of today, 11/9/09 and also thanks you for contacting him.

If there is anything else he can do for you regarding this or any state related matter, please contact him.

Take care.
Sheila Earhart

[WhiteFeather]

Originally Posted by andrewjs18

just got an email 5 minutes ago from my rep..he's now co-sponsoring.

Here's the email his secretary wrote:
Hi Andrew,

I'm Rep. Micozzie's secretary and he asked that I send you a quick email letting you know he was added to House Bill 1988 as of today, 11/9/09 and also thanks you for contacting him.

If there is anything else he can do for you regarding this or any state related matter, please contact him.

Take care.
Sheila Earhart

andrewjs18 YOU are that guy, I just got the update with Rep. Micozzie added his name as of Nov 9, 09 we have 53 co sponsors now