States May Pass Bills Stopping Federal Gun Control

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by 1024Megabytes, Mar 16, 2015.

  1. Earlier this week, two states passed bills that would block enforcement of future federal gun control measures. Montana and Arizona passed similar measures to nullify federal gun laws and prohibit state agencies and employees from assisting federal agencies from enforcing unlawful and unconstitutional gun laws.

    In Montana, Rep. Art Wittich introduced House Bill 203 (HB203) which would prohibit the state "from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal act enacted on or after Jan. 1, 2015 that "prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm or any magazine or other ammunition feeding device."

    Wittich's bill passed the House last month by a vote of 58-42. This week it passed the Senate with a vote of 27-22. The bill now heads to the governor's desk for his signature. If he fails to either sign or veto the bill within 10 days, it becomes law.

    Rep. Wittich said that the bill was needed in light of the Obama administration's usurpation of power and recent threats of unconstitutional executive orders.

    Montana is also looking at Senate Bill 143, introduced by Senator Cary Smith, which will also allow concealed firearms to be carried on college campuses in Montana. Should they adopt the bill, Montana would join seven other states that allow concealed carry on college campuses.

    Additionally, Senator Kelli Ward introduced Senate Bill 1330 (SB1330) that would do virtually the same thing as the Montana.

    "All federal act, laws, orders, rules and regulations that are in violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, that are unauthorized by the Constitution and that violate the Second Amendment's true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers of the United States Constitution are invalid and void in this state," the bill reads.

    The bill passed the Arizona Senate on Wednesday with a vote of 17-12.

    The Tenth Amendment Center says that these types of bills are "based on James Madison's advice for states and individuals in Federalist 46, a 'refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union' serves as an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership in the states.

    Read more at http://eaglerising.com/16189/states...eats-of-executive-action/#bZBl7zTWprgePQmF.99
     
  2. Back2School

    Back2School Member

    1,190
    0
    One of the things I loved about the Kansas nullification law if that if federal troops come into Kansas to enforce it, they are guilty of a felony.

    "Kansas’ “Second Amendment Protection Act” backs up its states’ rights claims with a penalty aimed at federal agents: when dealing with “Made in Kansas” guns, any attempt to enforce federal law is now a felony. "
    http://www.propublica.org/article/nullification-how-states-are-making-it-a-felony-to-enforce-federal-gun-laws

    Now I am just waiting for a KS gun company to get started :)
     

  3. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member


    Wonder if that would pertain to 80% lowers you finish into a gun?.....
     
  4. ekim

    ekim Member

    Or even full auto, sbr, factory supplied silencers. Could be interesting to hear how far they are willing to take this? :foilhat:
     
  5. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member


    That'd be interesting
     
  6. Back2School

    Back2School Member

    1,190
    0
    This is my serial #1...
     
  7. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,753
    2,233
    Florida
    The irony of it all is that the very agents being charged with felonies for illegally enforcing illegal laws would then be ineligible to keep their law enforcement jobs or to own firearms, themselves.:)
     
  8. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    3,960
    279
    IL
    Easy for States to pass laws against maybe's, or what if's, against something that has not happened. Would be interesting to see if they back up those laws if something actually happens. My thoughts: All preparation and no "H".
     
  9. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,500
    10,717
    NE Utah
    But it's a beginning. If enough states tell the Feds to step off...they have to either fight back, or back off. Either way, it makes clear what is going on.

    If enough DC politic-rats see their voting bases standing up for something, they MIGHT actually respond to the wishes of their constituency, and stand up as well.
     
  10. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    3,960
    279
    IL
    I understand your point, but not going to hold my breath until it happens. The 9 pro-gun control States will never join in.. These pro-gun State Laws are paper only and not legal if the Feds enact more gun laws ... Art VI of the Constitution states that Fed laws supersede State laws. Whether or not the Feds will do anything about it, is something we won't know until it happens.
     
  11. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,753
    2,233
    Florida
    The 10th Amendment also says that powers not delegated by the Constitution to the government of the United States are solely reserved for the states or the people.

    That would seem to imply that there is a means by which one could argue that if a state decides that gun laws that put restrictions beyond those already in place are created with powers not delegated by the Constitution to the government of the United States, then those laws are solely reserved for the states.

    In other words, if a state decides that restricting the ability to transfer ownership of firearms between private parties is not in keeping with powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, then the state could say that the federal government does not have the right to exercise that power within its borders.
     
  12. The 9 States that have awful laws against civilian firearm ownership are:

    Connecticut
    New York
    New Jersey
    California
    Maryland
    Hawaii
    Washington
    Rhode Island
    Massachusetts

    Colorado also has some pretty bad restrictive firearm laws. Which State has the worst laws against firearm ownership? In my opinion it is probably Connecticut but I could be wrong.
     
  13. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Can't be.

    Magnum P.I. always had a 1911 stuffed in his waistband.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  14. Art VI doesn't apply in this case, depending on how the state law is written.

    The US supreme court has ruled at least twice that in the area of state providing for the arming of it's militiamen, the Fed government has no say. And currently all states rely on the militiamen to provide their own arms.

    Doubt if the Feds will do anything, not even going to court. Since the Bundy ranch incident last year, the Fed gov has shown that it's a paper tiger and has a big yellow strike up it's back and won't use force. The Obama regime isn't even brave enough to take any this new round of laws to court.

    Yup. The :mumy::mumy:have lost. They couldn't disarm the people, ran out of money and decline every day. They can't disappear any to soon for the well being of the world.
     
  15. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  16. Tagging this thread just to see if the law really passes. Might have to move to Montana.
     
  17. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    3,960
    279
    IL
    Most State militiamen are a joke. Wouldn't last 5 minutes in duress
     
  18. What to does that have to with the laws about the right to keep and bear arms?

    But I'm glad to see that you want revitalize the state militias as is required by the supreme law of the land. I certainly hope that you aren't opposed to the rule of law. Especially you being from Illinois which was the 1st state to violate that law.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2015
  19. Back2School

    Back2School Member

    1,190
    0

    Truth. All the more reason to go back to the constitution and disband the standing army. Also add in b.s. gov groups like DHS. Get the militia men back to where it should be while reducing the costs of paying for a "warrior class" that looks down on the citizens.
     
  20. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    I think we *(the United States)* should just sell off these States that constantly violate the Constitution. They could have their own socialist governments and we could lower the deficit in the process. :foilhat: