Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act Passes Out of Committee 8-3

[Loser]

HB2805 passed the House States’ Rights Committee 8-3.The bill states, in part:
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Oklahoma and that remains within the borders of Oklahoma is not subject to federal law, treaty, federal regulation or federal executive action, including any federal firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
It also includes penalties of up to $5000 and at least 1 year in prison for violations of the act:
It is unlawful for 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 to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the State of Oklahoma and that remains within the borders of Oklahoma.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/02/oklahoma-firearms-freedom-act-passes-out-of-committee-8-3/?doing_wp_cron=1392874019.4169099330902099609375#. UwauaEJdUVJ

Lets see how this plays out.

About 9 other states are attempting this right now. :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I'm all for the protection of legal gun owners, but I'm pretty sure that state law cannot supersede federal law :-k

[DemonGeminiX]

That's very true. Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law "the supreme law of the land".

[Griffin]

It will give manufacturers a place to relocate if they are currently in states that are getting too strict. A lot of them are on the east coast where their representatives have spines made of jello.

[KevinD]

That's very true. Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law "the supreme law of the land".

True, but I'd argue that article 1 section 8, the 9th and 10th amendments define what federal law is to regulate. Anything else is up to the states. Thus IMHO, if there is nothing in the federal constitution prohibiting it, a state can make and enforce it's own law.

[Loser]

I'm all for the protection of legal gun owners, but I'm pretty sure that state law cannot supersede federal law :-k


In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment, and the Court's 1985 Garcia opinion remains the controlling authority on that subject.

10th amendment. Read it ;)

[Loser]

Firearms freedom legislation and federal gun laws nullification

Starting in 2012, in response to a threat of law made through executive orders by President Obama, more than a dozen states around the US began proposing legislation that would "...declare that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states". The legislation would require that the firearm be prominently marked as being "Made in {name of state}" and further prohibit federal regulation solely on the basis that "basic materials" and "generic and insignificant parts" of the firearm may have their origins from outside the state.

Through 2010, resolutions have been introduced in the legislatures of 27 states that would nullify federal authority over such local firearms. The legislation passed in Montana and Tennessee in 2009 and in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming the following year.[15] South Carolina has taken the issue one step further: in 2010 a bill was introduced which would effectively nullify all gun registration laws within the state.[16]
Texas has prefiled[17] and West Virginia has filed[18] similar legislation for the current 2011 legislative session.
In 2013, one of the most strongly worded Second Amendment protection acts in the nation was signed into law in Kansas.[19]


:lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

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.


“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.

The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.

Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag “Anti-Federalists.”

The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.

It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.

When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.

Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

10th amendment. Read it ;)


HB2805 passed the House States’ Rights Committee 8-3.The bill states, in part:
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Oklahoma and that remains within the borders of Oklahoma is not subject to federal law, treaty, federal regulation or federal executive action, including any federal firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
It also includes penalties of up to $5000 and at least 1 year in prison for violations of the act:
It is unlawful for 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 to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the State of Oklahoma and that remains within the borders of Oklahoma.

Your post, read it ;)

[FBD]

fact of the matter is, "federal law" is not whatever the federal government decides it is going to be to an arbitrary extent.

if a federal law goes beyond the powers delegated to it in the constitution, it is automatically null, void, and unenforceable.

though the fucking feds will try anyway, and they have been very successful in circumventing the constitution using the ass backward arguments posted here in support of federal "law."

[Griffin]

but the states bill was still put in place to lure industry and create new jobs there.