States Stepping Into The Breach

From our friends at the Tenth Amendment Center:

Texas, Missouri Join Other States Looking To Block Gun Bans

On the same day President Obama called for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, a Texas legislator filed a bill asserting, “Not in my state.”

On Wednesday, the Lone Star State joined five other states already considering legislation that would block enforcement of federal firearms acts in violation of the Second Amendment.

Texas Rep. John Otto (R-Dayton) announced the filing of HB553 on Wednesday morning. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for any state or federal official to “enforce or attempt to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore.”

“The Second Amendment won’t enforce itself,” Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said. “The Bill of Rights is nothing but a piece of parchment without some power behind it stepping in and holding the federal government in check. James Madison said when the feds pass an unwarrantable measure, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. He was referring to the state governments. Texas has the opportunity to do just what the founders intended, interpose and resist an out of control federal government and protect the most basic rights of its citizens.”

Texas doesn’t stand alone in the fight. On Tuesday, Missouri Rep. Casey Guernsey (R-Bethany) introduced HB170, a similar bill that would block enforcement of a wide range of unconstitutional federal restrictions on firearms. The bill affirms the state’s authority to regulate firearms made and owned exclusively within Missouri, and makes it a felony for any federal agent to attempt to enforce a federal regulation on such weapons. The bill then goes a step further.

Any federal law, rule, regulation, or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 shall be unenforceable in the state of Missouri if the law, rule, regulation, or order attempts to:

(1) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or

(2) Require any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.
Maharrey called proactive steps by state legislatures crucial.

Maharrey called these state actions crucial.

“The president made it clear that he will push Congress hard to ban certain weapons, a clear violation of the spirit of the Second Amendment, which forbids any abridgement of the right to keep and bear arms. Banning clearly abridges. Look the word up; it’s pretty clear,” he said. “Like every American, I am horrified at the evil perpetrated by the killer at Sandy Hook elementary. But we cannot use one act of evil as an excuse to perpetrate another. And make no mistake; allowing the federal government to strip away our fundamental rights is an act of calculated evil. We can’t trust the feds to reign in their own power. The states must step in and protect their people.”

Wyoming, Tennessee, South Dakota and South Carolina also have similar bills pending before their legislatures. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicate as many as a dozen more states could follow suit in the coming weeks.

To track Second Amendment Preservation legislation across the U.S. visit: tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2ndamendment

YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A 10TH AMENDMENT

Montana Senate Bill #114 (Proposed)

No, the fat lady hasn't sung yet, and the bill has yet to pass, but the fact that such a bill is even proposed makes me proud of Montana. The sheriff is indeed the highest law-enforcement official in his county, and it's about time the Feds got a reminder of that. The best part is that if the Feds violate this law, it requires them to be prosecuted by the county attorney. Ya gotta love it.

Here's a bit of the bill.

Section 2. County sheriff's permission for federal arrests, searches, and seizures -- exceptions. (1) A federal employee who is not designated by Montana law as a Montana peace officer may not make an arrest, search, or seizure in this state without the written permission of the sheriff or designee of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search, or seizure will occur unless:...
Section 3. Remedies. (1) An arrest, search, or seizure or attempted arrest, search, or seizure in violation of [section 2] is unlawful, and the persons involved must be prosecuted by the county attorney for kidnapping if an arrest or attempted arrest occurred, for trespass if a search or attempted search occurred, for theft if a seizure or attempted seizure occurred, and for any applicable homicide offense if loss of life occurred. The persons involved must also be charged with any other applicable criminal offense in Title 45.

(2) To the extent possible, the victims' rights provisions of Title 46 must be extended to the victim or victims by the persons and entities involved in a prosecution.

(3) The county attorney shall prosecute once a claim of violation of [section 2] has been made by the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff, and failure to prosecute subjects the county attorney to recall by the voters and to prosecution by the attorney general for official misconduct.

OK Montanans, let's back this one to the hilt.

NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws

by Michael Boldin

NH Legislators again raise the bar for the 10th Amendment Movement – felony charges proposed for federal agents violating gun rights in New Hampshire
Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session in New Hampshire, House Bill 1285 (HB1285) seeks to “exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation.”

Introduced by State Rep. Dan Itse, the bill currently has 5 other co-sponsors, including 10-4 pledge signer, Carol Vita. (h/t NHLiberty.org)

While the bill’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 states, in part:

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the State and people of New Hampshire certain powers as they were understood at the time that New Hampshire ratified the Bill of Rights, particularly the Tenth Amendment in 1790. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the State and people of New Hampshire and the several States comprising the United States as of the time that the compact was agreed upon and adopted by New Hampshire and the several States comprising the United States.

The regulation of inter-state commerce was delegated by the People of the Several States to the federal government in the US Constitution. Since the regulation of intra-state commerce was not delegated to the federal government, this authority, as codified in law by the 10th Amendment, remains with the State governments or the People themselves.

HB1285 includes this principle in its text:

"a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire is not subject to federal law or taxation, or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

"The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in New Hampshire from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into New Hampshire from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in New Hampshire."

Unlike many other states that are considering Firearms Freedom Acts (FFA), the New Hampshire legislation includes official sanctions on any state or federal official violating the law, if adopted.

State Agents:

"Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor."

Federal Agents:

"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 that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony." (emphasis added)

NULLIFICATION

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. Thirteen 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.

INTERPOSITION

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

Felony charges for violations of citizens’ rights such as proposed in HB1285 are certainly an effort to interpose between state residents and an overreaching federal government. Time will tell if the State Apparatus will follow through with such needed actions should the bill pass.

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center
Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Emperor Obama Targets Oklahoma

From our friends at the Tenth Amendment Center, here is an excerpt from an article by Bryce Shonka titled "Obama's Imperial Decree: Target Oklahoma":

The state of Oklahoma is now the target of a direct challenge from US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as justification to violate Oklahoma's sovereignty as affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

In a letter written to the State Attorney General in April, the Federal government used aggressive language, bringing up the possibility of withholding Federal funds appropriated for Oklahoma. The reason? A proposed amendment to the State Constitution, which requires voter approval, that would make English the official language of the State.
"What it indicates is the Federal Government's contempt for the states, in this case Oklahoma, and for the idea of federal - as opposed to national - government. AG Holder believes that Oklahoma is an administrative subdivision of the USA, and that it is perfectly right for him to coerce Oklahomans to do his will. Who cares whether he has ever been to Oklahoma, met an Oklahoman, or thought about Oklahoma?" said Kevin Gutzman, an American historian and New York Times bestselling author.
Oklahoma is not alone as a state challenged by central authority in recent months. Recently, federal firearms licensees in Tennessee and Montana received a letter from another Federal agency, the ATF, who had also issued a decree wrought with hubris - claims by the Federal government of their legal supremacy across the land.
Read the entire article here.

Liberty Pub Revisited

In January of 2008 I spent the evening of the New Hampshire Republican primary in the Liberty Pub in Washington D.C. [See "Not All Pleased With McCain's N.H. Win" 1-10-08] I watched the results roll in with a group of regulars to the pub. The ten grizzled old friends, amendments to the Constitution collectively called "The Bill of Rights," provided a unique perspective on the election results that night and the direction of the country in general.

During a recent trip to D.C. I decided to stop by the pub to see how my ten amendment friends were getting along. I found them gathered around their usual table in a dark corner of the smokey bar and I pulled up a chair. After a round of greetings (and boilermakers), I counted noses and noticed that there were only nine of them at the table. I asked about the whereabouts of the Tenth Amendment (called "Ten" by his friends) and was answered only with awkward silence.

After a moment the Sixth Amendment answered, "He's... passed on." I noticed the lip of the Ninth Amendment (Ten's "longtime companion") begin to quiver.

"Here comes the waterworks," the Third Amendment said, leaning in to warn me. True to the warning, Nine burst into tears.

Ten, I had learned in my previous visit, had been unemployed since the Great Depression. His job had been to "tell the Federal Government to do their own friggin’ job and let the States and the People do theirs," he had told me at that time. And now he was gone.

"It was all too much for him, " Nine explained tearfully, putting down his mamosa. "The Feds taking over the banking industry, then the car industry, pretty soon the medical industry. Ten just felt so... violated. One morning he jumped in front of a metro bus on his way to the unemployment office."

"Don't criticize!" the First Amendment warned, looking nervously around the bar. "Do you want to end up on some terror watch-list?"

There were a few more beats of awkward silence, then I commented that it really makes you think. "You never know who might be next," I observed. I noticed that that comment caused several worried glances down at the Second Amendment, seated at the far end of the table, with his back to the wall. "Two" looked different than before.

He retained his snakeskin boots, leather chaps, and ten-gallon Stetson hat, but now over his shirt he wore a O.D. green Kevlar flak vest, festooned with ammo pouches. Last time we met, Two's pistol hip had been barren. Now, buoyed by some recent court victories, a brace of Kimber .45 auto pistols hung in tactical holsters, one on each hip. On his lap he cradled a new semi-automatic AR-10 battle rifle. He rested his right hand on the rifle's pistol grip, while he poured and drank his whisky with his left. He looked as if he could be equally at home in Deadwood orFallujah.

Besides different accessories, Two looked different physically too. His eyes were still full of life, but he looked tired and had bags under his eyes. I commented to him that he looked a little haggard.

"Son, I been sleepin' with one eye open," Two explained. "I been watching that Bareback Omaha fella, to see what his next move is."

Chuckling, the Fourth Amendment corrected his friend, speaking slowly, "Barack Obama."

Two, avoiding that tongue-twister all together, continued, "The President's been putting together a whole herd of some of the orneriest sidewinders I ever tangled with. Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Sonia Sotomayor. It's purdy obvious it's a hangin' posse. When they figger the time is right, they'll be coming after me."

I ask if that makes him nervous. Two shakes his head as he leans to spit tobacco juice into a spittoon three feet away. "Hell with um," he continues. "Ain't the first bunch of bushwhackers to try to send ME to Boot Hill. And I'm still here."

I ask how he can be so confident. He explains, "The President might have all the hired guns, but I got a lot of good folks on my side. You see, folks all around the country been armin' theirselves for a showdown. They got my back, I reckon."

He pours himself a shot and continues, "Tyrants tryin' to disarm folks ain't nothin' new. My pappy, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, used to tell me stories about this ol'boy named King George tryin' the same dang thing at Lexington and Concord."

Two's shot glass pauses in front of his mouth and the corners of his long mustache curl up a bit, the only sign of the toothy smile underneath it. He continued, "As I recall that didn't work out too well for the king." The shot disappears.

I said my goodbyes and thanked my friends.

Later, as my plane back to Des Moines climbed into the night sky, I watched the lights of D.C. disappear behind me and thought about the nine remaining amendments. They're old and showing their age. They seem increasingly lost and forgotten in the modern world. But that world is so much the richer for having them in it. I hope they'll be around for a long time to come, so my kids can get to know them as I have.

States' Rights and the Left

Here's an excerpt from an excellent article by conservative commentator Jack Hunter:

So being "backward" or "reactionary" now means questioning the power of government or invoking "horrible" men like Calhoun. And being "progressive" or "forward-thinking" now means fully embracing government and invoking those like Obama and liberal hero FDR.

And yet, I know few liberals who support the War on Drugs, marriage "protection" amendments, or the Patriot Act. In fact, if you talk to the most vocal Leftists about drug criminalization, gay marriage, or the loss of civil liberties, their anti-government rhetoric can sound downright reactionary. "Government has within it a tendency to abuse its powers," Calhoun said. Today, much of the American Left agrees with him.

So how do liberals square their fear of intrusive government with their enthusiasm for Obama? The opposite question could also be asked: how did so many conservatives square their fear of big government with their enthusiasm for President George W. Bush, whose unprecedented spending and increasing of the power of the state set the stage for Obama?

Sadly, most liberals or conservatives never think in such terms. Bush Republicans had no problem with big government so long as their guy was in charge of it, and now the same is true of Obama Democrats.

Some already comprehend the liberal value of states' rights. In an article entitled "The New States' Rights?" published by the San Francisco Chronicle in 2007, authors David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd wrote, "Just when you thought federalism was dead, and the 10th Amendment guaranteeing power to the states had been erased from the Constitution, state governments have asserted themselves on an astonishing array of issues traditionally the province of the federal government.

Read the entire article here.