The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 29, 2010, 11:11 AM   #1
langoley
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Posts: 8
Firearms Freedom Act??

I am going to ask a good question.Since there are 2 states(Mt,Tn)that have already passed the Firearms Freedam Act,and 21 more states that have already introduced legislation,and another 8 intending to introduce it,and I know it will probably have to go to court before the federal govt. will recognize it,but could this law make "pre-ban" and "post-ban"semi-auto's a thing of the past as long as the weapons remain in the states they are manufactured in?
langoley is offline  
Old January 29, 2010, 11:27 AM   #2
ADB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
There's no federal ban on semi-auto features anymore, so I don't see how it's relevant.
ADB is offline  
Old January 29, 2010, 01:11 PM   #3
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
"pre-ban" and "post-ban" no longer meaningful.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old January 29, 2010, 01:38 PM   #4
trekkie951
Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Location: BERNE NY
Posts: 47
It means something in New York State, and other states where there are "assault weapons" bans of their own.

To answer the OP, the way I interpret it, the answer is yes technically. But there would be a court case somewhere down the line and then you'd have the whole deal of the federal gov't declaring it null and void and then it would probably might as well have never existed. Times are different than they were in the 1850's.
trekkie951 is offline  
Old January 29, 2010, 03:37 PM   #5
rburch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 687
I like New Hampshire's bill:

HB1285

Quote:
159-E:4 Penalty.

I. 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.

II. 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.
So the first time the ATFE tries to enforce federal gun laws after this goes into effect (assuming it becomes law) they get charged with a Felony.

Kind of hard to be an ATFE agent if you're a convicted felon.
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

Last edited by rburch; January 29, 2010 at 03:42 PM. Reason: to add the link.
rburch is offline  
Old January 29, 2010, 03:58 PM   #6
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by rburch
So the first time the ATFE tries to enforce federal gun laws after this goes into effect (assuming it becomes law) they get charged with a Felony.

Kind of hard to be an ATFE agent if you're a convicted felon.
Think a conviction would survive the federal court appeal? I don't. I'd bet that it wouldn't even get to trial.
Don H is offline  
Old January 29, 2010, 04:24 PM   #7
rburch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 687
Quote:
Think a conviction would survive the federal court appeal? I don't. I'd bet that it wouldn't even get to trial.
No I know it'd overturned when it gets to the federal level. Still charged by the state for a state violation, wouldn't that start in the state courts?

I think it's more of a "Do you feel Lucky?" challenge in response to the ATFE's notice to the folks in Montana and Tennessee.
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
rburch is offline  
Old January 29, 2010, 04:38 PM   #8
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
It means something in New York State, and other states where there are "assault weapons" bans of their own.
No it doesn't. The Firearms Freedom Acts are laws passed by the state legislature. My guess is you are extremely unlikely to find a Firearms Freedom Act bill and an Assault Weapons Ban coexisting - and even if you did, the Firearms Freedom Act only asserts freedom from FEDERAL regulation, so the ban would still be valid.

All of these bills are currently being challenged in litigation. The Second Amendment Foundation is supporting that fight.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 30, 2010, 02:01 PM   #9
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,824
Are these Firearms Freedom bills a double edged sword?

On one side, the basis is that Federal law doesn not apply to items made in, and only existing in the state. A nice idea, on the surface, State's rights, and all.

But the other side, the effort to get the US 2nd amendment to apply to states, something many consider to be a good thing, seems to me to go in the opposite direction.

IF we support the right and authority of individual states to keep Federal laws out, how can we support the Federal 2nd amd, being "in"?

Is the solution a two tier system, with only state law applying to those items made and used only in state, and state and Fed law applying to those items that have moved in interstate commerce?

Also, if a govt agent is charged (and found guilty) of a crime under state law, for arresting me for a Fed law violation, does that mean that I am off the hook for for the Fed violation? OR am I still charged with a Fed crime?

This seems like a real can of worms to me, and I doubt any of us are going to relish the taste in the end. We should proceed with care.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 31, 2010, 12:29 AM   #10
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,750
Quote:
No I know it'd overturned when it gets to the federal level. Still charged by the state for a state violation, wouldn't that start in the state courts?
When a state charges a federal agent with a crime while they are engaged in their duties, the U.S. can remove any state charge to the federal courts. It would then be simply dismissed. This happened following the Ruby Ridge incident when the state charged an FBI agent with manslaughter.

Alternatively, a federal judge could enjoin a state court from proceeding. They are reluctant to do this normally, but this is not a normal case.

In other words, it's really a waste of ink and paper.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old January 31, 2010, 02:31 AM   #11
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
But the other side, the effort to get the US 2nd amendment to apply to states, something many consider to be a good thing, seems to me to go in the opposite direction.
Well, I would just note that these laws are sponsored by SAF - the same organization behind McDonald. It strikes me that one of the major arguments against McDonald is that the state can regulate firearms because the individual right to own firearms is there in order for the state to arm its militia. What the Firearms Freedom Acts do is put our opponents (and any wavering Justices) on notice that if they win with that argument (unlikely in my view), then they have to swallow the opposite approach as well - a state can be less strict than the Feds for the same reason.

Quote:
IF we support the right and authority of individual states to keep Federal laws out, how can we support the Federal 2nd amd, being "in"?
Well, I would make this distinction this way - the Constitution grants the federal government no police power to regulate firearms at all. What power they do claim is through the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Therefore firearms not made in interstate commerce, properly fall outside the scope of Federal law, Wickard notwithstanding.

The Bill of Rights on the other hand is a guarantee of individual rights. These rights are preexisting and no government can justly take them away. The States are not free to oppress their own citizens (segregate by race, deny them freedom of speech, seize their property without recompense, tamper with elections etc.) By the 14th Amendment, the Federal government is empowered to enforce these basic rights for all citizens.

So in both cases, the Federal government is acting in the proper role outlined for it in the Constitution. Of course the big problem with my argument is you have to overturn Wickard to get there, and I don't see that happening - though it should.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08756 seconds with 9 queries