by Michael Boldin
Pennsylvania State Representative Sam Rohrer has introduced the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB1988) for consideration in the state legislature. Â Â The bill is “An Act prohibiting certain firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition from being subject to Federal law or Federal regulation.”
HB1988 currently has 48 additional co-sponsors, and according to FirearmsFreedomAct.com, is similar to bills recently enacted into law in both Montana and Tennessee.
While the bill seems to focus solely on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.  It specifically states:
The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
Rohrer, in a recent letter to Pennsylvania House Members, addressed the issue of the commerce clause:
Under the current, expansive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, it is permissible for the federal government to regulate the sale of goods that are manufactured and sold exclusively within a state’s borders. Effectively, the federal courts hold that if a product might possibly find its way into streams of interstate commerce, federal laws to regulate that product are appropriate. The product need not actually be sold between states.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a farmer who was fined by the federal government for growing too much wheat. Effectively, the argument in Wickard v. Filburn was that the wheat he grew and consumed himself would lead to decreased wheat sales in other states, so it fell under federal jurisdiction because of the interstate commerce clause.
As recently as 2005 (Gonzales v. Raich), the U.S. Supreme Court cited Wickard as standing for the proposition that “Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,†in that it is not produced for interstate sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.â€
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, wheat (in Wickard) and medical marijuana (in Raich) are completely indistinguishable from such products made and sold in interstate commerce, so federal regulation is appropriate.
Under my bill, the policy of this Commonwealth would be that firearms and firearm accessories manufactured and exclusively sold in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, carrying the brand “Made in Pennsylvania†(all clear indicators of intrastate commerce), would be subject only to state law.
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 State Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010, and up to 10 states may consider similar Amendment proposals next session.   And, 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.
While some advocates and legal theorists concede that a 10th Amendment federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.
In the past 2 years, nearly two dozen state legislatures passed resolutions and laws refusing to implement the 2005 Real ID Act. Â Because of this, and without congressional repeal, The Bush-era law is effectively null and void.
Some advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter whether or not the federal government agrees, or even if it threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma. Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:
“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills. And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.“
Whether or not state legislators have the backbone to resist if federal officials strongly disagree remains to be seen. Â But either way, as nullification efforts spread, it points to a growing state-level rebellion to the federal government.
Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Better reading of the Constitution than Nancy Pelosi has!
Pass it!
good stuff, I enjoy starting my day reading news about a State that asserts it’s right to govern it’s self.
I’m sure it’s got a long way to go in the PA legislature, but kudos again to Sam Rohrer for making these important first steps happen. He and Mike Folmer in the Senate there have been in the forefront of the 10th Amendment movement for some time.
There’s a solid core of Tenthers in PA, I’ve spoken to a couple of them. Good people who won’t take Federal overreach laying down.
Some advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter whether or not the federal government agrees, or even if it threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma.
Let’s be clear; the sovereign citizens of Oklahoma (Of which I’m one and speak, therefore, with that much authority at very least) will not stand for exclusive federal regulation of their/our private lives notwithstanding anything else. The federal government, so long as it asserts an extra-constitutional power to preempt 9th and 10th amendment State authority is a non-entity as far as we’re concerned. Others may well disagree, and they may have a point to some degree, but their disagreement on any grounds doesn’t change the basic facts of the matter: Okies are not in any way bound by any extra-constitutional assertion of authority emmitted from the federal government or its acolytes. End of story.
Terry – I like the sound of that! All laws passed by the federal government that include powers that are not delegated to them in the Constitution – need to be resisted. I believe it’s going to take some courageous legislators and governors. In OK you’ve got some really good ones – Charles Key, Jason Murphey in the legislature, and…Randy Brogdon running for governor.
Terry,
Don’t ever let anyone get away with deeming your sentiment un-patriotic, for that is the foundation of our Republic- not one central nation but rather 50 sovereign states. That’s America and that is what the founding fathers spent so much of their lives designing.
It is in the will of the people of the several states in which sovereignty lies.The individual states of their very nature are inherently sovereign.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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 9th and 10th Amendments are Constitutional Laws.Inherent within these laws are certain conclusions that are certain.The Resolutions based on these amendments are not mere proposals but are in effect laws themselves and have the effect of law.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the 10th Amendment.
The sovereign states have the right to interpose or resist the implementation of federal law,to nullify unconstitutional laws,and to secede.Furthermore the state legislatures have the authority to overrule any federal law it considers unconstitutional and can make it null and void.It has always had this right.This includes the Supreme Court.
One of the insurmountable difficulties is that the state courts are all of the same mindset as the federal courts and have forgotten their obligations to the states.Federal courts do not dictate to the state courts.
As far as the spending clause is concerned in bringing the states into line the Congress is doing this with the taxpayers’ dollars.There is no such thing as “federal monies”.To circumvent this the states need only withhold the so called federal income tax withheld from employees checks and from whatever other sources the federal government derives its so called “monies”
As far as the “necessary and proper”clause is concerned it is a mere redundancy.It did not imply that the federal government had any greater powers than those specifically stated[Alexander Hamilton]
Necessary and Proper Clause:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof
If this doesn’t refer specifically and only to Art1 Sec8[and it does] then it[Congress] has failed in its duty to defend and protect the 9th and 10th Amendments since these are powers vested by this Constitution in the governing of the United States just as all the rest of the Amendments are involved in the governance of the United States. These two Amendments are critical in the governing of the United States.Perhaps its just as well they don’t have anything to say and let the courts do the intruding which is constant,unwarranted,and unconstitutional.Each and every state participates in the governing of the United States through its representatives in Congress if you can call them that but on a federal level.The states still remain sovereignly supreme in their own right always.We are guaranteed under the Constitution a republican form of government.
As far as the Supremacy Clause is concerned the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land and laws not made in pursuance thereof are unconstitutional.But who has the last say?
The States can determine for themselves whether a law is unconstitutional.And the authority for this comes from the 9th and 10 Amendments as well as the state legislatures.
1-9 are federal laws, NOT state laws. PA guns laws are much worse that Federal. I cannot get a gun in PA but can in other states. This would be terrible. Wanting to use the tenth amendment to defeat the second is odd since the tenth pertains to things NOT covered in the first nine. States should not be able to have ANY gun laws. I should be able to carry a gun the same way in every state. I should be able to drive with weapons in the car the same way in every state. The same way that my fifth amendment law protects me IN EVERY STATE.
Jeremy – the 10th is not there to “defeat the 2nd” at all. It’s to keep the federal government out of state affairs. period.
The Constitution doesn’t apply to you, it doesn’t apply to me, and it doesn’t apply to any person at all. It applies to the federal government (and in some small situations, state governments)
This bill is written not only to prevent the feds from enacting gun laws and regulations in PA, but also to set precedent on the Commerce clause, which is far bigger than just gun laws referenced in the bill.
Now – if you don’t like the gun laws in your state, you should really get on top of your state officials to change those – or move the hell out of there!
The Second Amendment gives exclusive authority to the people of the different States to keep and bear arms.
Under this Amendment neither Congress nor the States are authorized to pass legislation regulating firearms.
The 10th Amendment clarifies the limited power of Congress and specifies all the additional powers granted to the people.
Moreover this Amendment nullifies whatever Intestate Commerce Clause might have existed prior to the passage of the Amendments.
At any rate the original Interstate Commerce Clause it was meant to” regulate” Commerce and not to criminalize it!!!
Amendment 10 clearly removes this “weapon” from the dangerous hands of Congress.
Ed Rendall is anti gun because he supports the semi automatic gun ban! But when Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania’s attorney general becomes governor, he’ll be likely to sign it and make sure the good law abiding citizens of Pennsylvania are protected from the tyrannical Obama Administration and his Democratic controlled congress! The most recent anti gun proposed legislation in the “Big Spending” congress is the gun show “loophole” closing act which does nothing more than Buerecratically outlaws gun shows! Hopefully Ron Paul will be elected president in 2012! Also, I’m sure glass to see Tom Ridge aint runnin in the senate as a republican, know what i mean! Pat Toomey rules!!
Corey,
Corbett is likely to sign it?
SAM ROHRER WILL SIGN IT, as he WROTE the DARN THING.
SAM ROHRER, a hunter and sportsman, has been leading the fight on Constitutional issues for years. He is who we need as Governor!
NOT some stuffed shirt like Corbett who takes credit for everyone else’s work