Well here we go with another state attempting to break away from the an overbearing and the unconstitutional actions of our federal government.
Jefferson once wrote, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” To resist this centralizing trend, Jefferson was convinced, the states needed some kind of corporate defense mechanism, nullification.
Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment
In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.
The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”
While the FFA’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. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:
“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”
NULLIFICATION
(When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.)
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.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.
A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue.
“For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states,” said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. “The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen’s right to bear arms isn’t the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration.”
“Enough is enough,” urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. “Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”
LITIGATION
In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).
“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”
Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA. Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country? (I think it’s a conflict of interest to take it to a federal court, just pass a state law nullifying the federal authority in your state. Actually IMO the states don’t need justification from federal courts, the states just need to tell the federal government they don’t recognize or authorize their authority to regulate gun control in their state based on nullification of that federal law in their state. The state legislature can pass such a law and nullify the federal authority from what I”ve read and heard. Check out additional info here.)
The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus – federal agencies who didn’t recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005. Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.
Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.
babybttrfly
Steve Hilton
Mike
Nov 11, 2009 @ 23:05:00
Many people do not know about nullification because judges do not let attorney’s inform the jury. We are just to stupid to understand these complex arguments. What do you expect. We the people have been taking more power away from ourselves/juries because of car-chase media and the drama queens (cable news and talk radio) trash talking our justice system.
It is evident that conservatives and liberals do not trust states rights and “those juries” that use slot machine justice.
“Well here we go with another state attempting to break away from the an overbearing and the unconstitutional actions of our federal government.”
How serious I am to take conservatives on this issue of “the unconstitutional actions of our federal government”.
Is the constitution only important to conservatives only when it does not take anything from them, but when it costs the individual conservatives they will through the constitution out or use some sort of fuzzy gray logic to settle the rift in the universe?
I really get tired of conservatives and/or Republicans talking about the size and control of the Federal government.
So is it “off my front porch” but I do not care what constitutional rights you take away from someone else as I only care about those that are important to me?
Is this what conservatives believe in?
To many people use the constitution to service their egos.
http://www.robertsfight.com
Nov 12, 2009 @ 18:08:12
Mark first I want to say I’m sorry about your son. I went to Robert’s website and read it. That has to be hard on you. You will be in my prayers and I’m sure Steve’s as well.
Now to get to this nullification thing your confused on for some reason. Maybe some other “conservative” person has gave you the wrong impression or maybe you heard this on MSM.
“How serious I am to take conservatives on this issue of “the unconstitutional actions of our federal government”.
Is the constitution only important to conservatives only when it does not take anything from them, but when it costs the individual conservatives they will through the constitution out or use some sort of fuzzy gray logic to settle the rift in the universe?
No as Steve said this has nothing to do with what’s in it for me or what’s this taking away from me. It is as Steve said about the 10th amendment and a far overreaching federal government. For years now (especially since the 1930s progressive movement) the federal government has expanded it’s control over it’s citizens by crying, the “commerce clause” or “general welfare clause” gives us the unlimited authority under the Constitution to do such and such. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You have obviously studied some on the founding fathers, then you should know they feared a big centralized national government and when they wrote the Bill of Rights it was directed straight at the federal government. Now we have a federal government that is ignoring most of the Constitution and is attempting to take control of all aspects of our lives. This is what these movements are about, nothing with losing or gaining anything from the feds or ego. As many see it our federal government is fast becoming what our founding fathers fought to get away from, Great Britain.
“I really get tired of conservatives and/or Republicans talking about the size and control of the Federal government.”
Well then Mark you wouldn’t like but a handful of the founding fathers because of the comments I made above about their state against big government.
“So is it “off my front porch” but I do not care what constitutional rights you take away from someone else as I only care about those that are important to me?
Is this what conservatives believe in?”
NO ! “off my front porch” or no other Constitutionalist is taking any Constitutional rights away from you or anyone else. If you think this is true, that shows me you don’t understand what a Constitutional Republic really is.
I think this statement below says pretty much what concerns most Constitutionalist today:
“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things,shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”….Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821
Nov 11, 2009 @ 23:40:11
Mark,
Where is the logic here? You’re ranting at the actions of the states to pull away from unconstitutional acts of the feds and calling it conservatism? It’s the 10th amendment. If you’ll look, most of these states have both parties, Democrats and Republicans. They’re not worried about conservative policies, they’re making the stand that the feds do not have authority over the states in these matters as authorized by the constitution. This isn’t a conservative thing, it isn’t a Republican thing, it is a founder’s principle that the abhorrent size of the federal government is wrong. I for one am glad the states are speaking up, and it’s not an ego thing, it’s a freedom thing.