Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
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.
CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Tracking Page or visit FirearmsFreedomAct.com
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.
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Stella Tremblay, candidate for State Representative, 3rd District, Rockingham, is now a PROUD TENTH AMENDMENT PLEDGE SIGNER!!
Congratulations Stella!!
Go New Hampshire!
As everybody knows, Our fiat bills are losing the confidence game and the gold purchases are proving it. Congress is also losing the confidence game as well by the action of the people in town hall meetings. The point I would like to make is out best, real best, chance to make a difference is to push for our state representatives to nullify ALL federal actions against the states on which the Constitution does not grant the powers that the FEDs do not have. Now that would really send a voice to the $@%&* Federal Government. And to kick out ANY politician out of office that will not listen to the people. NULLIFICATION FIRST and then ..... the rest.
I mentioned this before holiday and I'll mention it again. My reservation about so-called federal gun regulations is this. Even if the 2nd A. had never been made, given that the feds have only those powers expressly delegated to them by the states via the Constitution, I have yet to find any statute which expressly delegates power to Congress to regulate civilian firearms; the 2nd A. is certainly not a such a delegation of power. Note that James Madison wasn't excited about making a bill of rights because the federal government's powers were so limited in the first place.
In fact, I'm very suspicious that timelines for federal gun regulations for civilians suggest that such regulations don't appear on radar until the FDR administration. After all, FDR and Congress went into high gear with respect to seriously ignoring their constitutional limits. So I wouldn't be surprised if feds actually have no constitutional authority to regulate civilian firearms.
So what am I overlooking?
So how do you deal with the prohibition on infringement contained in the Second Amendment, since the 1791 Bill of Rights clarifies and supersedes the powers delegated to the central government in the 1787 Constitution?
I don't think New Hampshire has the balls to pass a law this far and go thou with it, but the fact that their trying will tip off other more southern and western states which do have the guts to try this to actually try it.
Remember George Wallace? His cause may have been wrong (ignoring the powers of the 14th and 15th amendments) but his stand none the less in relatively resent times did demonstrate that there is more then enough support in southern states to pull off such a thing with pride.
George Wallace was very popular for it too. So yes this can be done and it has been done before sometimes for good reasons sometimes for bad. That being said I'm not going to hold my breath for New Hampshire or any New England State to be the one to do it first. I applaud their efforts thou, the efforts alone will only serve to encourage the rest of us to actually do it and go all the way.
If New Hampshire after all can try to do this sort of thing in support of states rights, we down south and out west should be able to go at least 10 time further.(not that we would need to)
But let the fight start in New England as it did last time, and let that prove that the cause of liberty and Constitutional law is not simply a southern or western thing.
I really believe that if the federal govenment did not intervene in the way that they did most southerners would have eventually got rid of the segregation laws themselves just like most northerners eradicated black code laws.
Since 28 USC 3002(15((a) defines the United States as a "CORPORATION" pursuant to congressional authority enumerated in 1-8-17-18 of the constitution, the "Private Law" enacted by congress for the District and the 25 insular possessions owned by the "District" has no force or effect in any sovereign State. No sovereign state/nation can be compelled to honor or perform to such private law. However, once a sovereign state/nation permits its "corporate government", (created by the people to do the business of the republic in which the sovereign state/nation resides, to accept "Federal Funds" (not money, a mere extension of credit), then the sovereignty is exchange for compelled performance to the "Commercial Contract" that the United States Federal Corporation offered, and the "Corporate State accepted. Students of like mind have understood this "offering of contracts" as the means of escaping the chains of the constitutions mandates and prohibitions. See Article 1, Section 10."No State shall _ _ _ [make] law impairing thje Obligation of Contract". Actually, there is No consideration for the compelled performance since the FRN's offered as credit are not legal tender. HJR 192 and the resulting acts based on HJR 192, were repealed by the Bill submitted by House Judiciary Chairman, Peter Rodino of New Jersey in September of 1982. Such repeal was signed by President Ronald Reagan.
Now can anyone tell me why we are compelled to use this worthless green paper the corporation is printing up for distribution 24/7, thus stealing the purchasing power of the savings of those who were frugal and saved. some of their past earnings?
Because it's pursuant to congressional authority enumerated in 1-8-17-18 of the constitution. The "Corporation" is a red-herring argument. Congress has the authority to coin money, therefore it can delegate, or hire, the Federal Reserve to coin money. That simply means a legal entity, set for perpetuity, with its own EIN, as a way for Uncle Sam to obey its own tax and labor laws. Strike down the EIN, and United States congress with its ability to delegate and hire-out still exists. I am in favor of Nullification, and the 9th/10th Amendment 'intrastate commerce' basis for enacting it, but going the corporation angle is a dead-end.
Looking at this from England, I can hope that this works. I can imagine the State officials ending up being Waco-ised and then on Federal charges of obstructing Federal officials, probably tried in Vermont or DC (against the Constitution). It does remind me of the re-emergence of the Russian Federation out of the USSR 20 years ago. You could do with a Yeltsin (whatever his faults). Good luck.
This is the best means of restoring liberty. Pointless talk about reforming DC by electing Ron Paul or anyone else is a waste of time. We need to focus on local and State government; from there, we can fight the battle to reclaim what DC has stolen from us.
I meant row, rather than raw. Sorry!
In the spirit of having all the ducks in a raw, the writer of this article should have mentioned that a number of other states, beginning with MT, have enacted or are currently considering, similar measures.
It seems to me that in order to regain our liberty we must also challenge the power to regulate interstate commerce as currently practiced by the federal government. It's conceivable that all 50 states can pass all kinds of laws citing the 10th Amendment as a reason to keep the feds from regulating commerce within their states. Yet the division of labor and trade between states is also vital to our economic well being. Therefore interstate commerce must also be freed from federal micromanagement. It's possible that as their power within states wanes, the feds, in order to keep their regulators employed, will step up their interference in the commerce between states. This would raise the cost of trade between states so high as to make such trade increasingly less profitable thus forcing each state into an inefficient position of economic self sufficiency.
The original intent of the commerce clause in the Constitution was not to micromanage commerce at the federal level but to ensure that the flow of goods and services across state lines was not thwarted by taxes, tariffs or state laws discriminating against out of state businesses.
Along with Mr. Hamblen's argument, might we not also consider that though the transfer of firearms between manufacturers, jobbers, and wholesalers in one State to a dealer in another might be considered inter-state commerce, the sale of the firearm from the dealer to a customer in the same State is not and therefore the Federal Government has no authority under the Constitution to insist on background checks or playing a game of "twenty-questions" with the end consumer. The whole argument by the Federal government about interstate commerce is just an end run around the 2nd Amendment as is its argument for a whole slew of Fascist policies...
I wish you all would spend as much time and energy studying and promoting the Second Amendment as you do the Tenth and you will realize that [fire]arms do not require the protection of the Tenth. When you claim protection based on inter- vs. intra-state commerce you are conceding jurisdiction over arms which the Second Amendment effectively removes from any authority cited in the 1787 constitution, just as surely as the Thirteenth Amendment removed all protection for chattel slavery found in the 1787 document. I realize that you are merely trying to establish a precedent to use elsewhere, but in the process you are taking a terrible position regarding the Second Amendment. Do you not consider regulating interstate commerce to be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms?
"When you claim protection based on inter- vs. intra-state commerce you are conceding jurisdiction over arms which the Second Amendment effectively removes from any authority cited in the 1787 constitution, just as surely as the Thirteenth Amendment removed all protection for chattel slavery found in the 1787 document."
Exactly. As James Bovard put it, "When a trespasser is digging up your tulips and replacing them with marigolds, you don't enter into an argument with him over the relative merits of the two kinds of flowers. You tell him to get out of your yard."
Passing legislation as an end run around federal usurpation is a waste of time. Usurpation must be confronted directly.
The federal government is an abomination. I suppose that God has a purpose for it in the world that must give us pause in speaking against it, but as far as the Constitution, natural law, morals, and the gospel, the federal government is a criminal syndicate I have only distrust and disgust for.
The Grenade Has Been Tossed!?!?! Today is January Fourth, Twenty Ten.
The pin has been pulled, the spoon has flown away, and the grenade has been
thrown! Let There Be Boom!
Dear All,
Recently our fellow Individual Sovereign Human Being Tom Baugh issued the supreme question. Basically this boils down to
whom is willing to destroy whom...and for what purpose? Tom speaks the unspeakable. Tom asks the question that must not
be asked, for it then might be answered.
So let's have some fun with this, shall we? Tom's commentary revolves around the mercenaries and their supposed code.
Haha. What code? We can hear it now, "Dude, I had your sister before you had mine." Sorry to burst your bubble but
these/those dimwits/cannon-fodder retards are NOT going to think twice about disarming certain Amerikans after they have
been sufficiently demonized.
So since we're having fun let's watch as the bumbling bureaucrats, keystone kops, and stupified soldiers all get
paranoid as they suddenly suspect their fellow officeholders, precinct buddies, and platoon comrades. Haha.
Ask yourself, from the lustrous potentate on down...who's got whose back...who's got YOUR six? Seriously? Seriously!
Recently we commented on the insanity of airline passenger screening without considering who is watching the maintenance
and servicing personnel. Further, how many watchers per watcher does it take for the watching to be non-suspect? Which
came first, the chicken or the egg...hahaha.
Get your guns. Get your ammo. Get your gold and silver. Get your food, water, medicine, and toilet paper. Get them now.
Yes we really meant yesterday.
No we're not asking you to shoot your way out of this. Only that you attempt to make it through the period where the
bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries are all offing each other and, at the same time, running from the pitchfork,
torch, and noose-toting mobs of those whose GUNvernment loot and booty gravy train just plunged off the end of the
tracks into the bottomless abyss.
Anywho...
Ponder this thought. Have we, or have we not, engaged Gary Marbut to travel to Governor Brian Schweitzer to personally
affirm to the Montana Governor that human beings of all shapes, sizes, and colors...all across the globe...have got his
back. That we fully expect him to immediately issue a statewide command that all federal, foreign, and international
bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries leave the Sovereign State of Montana IMMEDIATELY AND WITH GREAT HASTE. Do not
pass GO and do not collect ANYTHING. Just go.
Perhaps we've issued the call for that drone operator to wreak havoc upon the drone facility itself?
Perhaps we've issued the call for that jet fighter pilot to destroy his own base of operations?
Perhaps we've issued the call for that tank commander to disable every armored asset within range?
Perhaps you will finally understand why you DO NOT want to be a bureaucrat, or a jackboot, or a mercenary...ever!
Perhaps when those Waco Killers perpetrate their next assault they will themselves be assaulted by bullets from nowhere
and bullets from everywhere. Please explain, you Waco Killers, how you intend to ply your dirty deeds when the Sovereign
Sniper is EVERYWHERE? Not to mention the fact that your own spouse secretly wants to slit your throat in the middle of
the night.
Seems like a great time to get out of your line of work about now...doesn't it? DOESN'T IT?
Oh, but you would never doubt the loyalty of your fellow Mobocracy Looter Minion Monkeys would you? WOULD YOU?
hahaha.
Furthermore, it seems that a Governor may have issued Marque and Reprisal against one confessed murdering bastard Lon
Horiuchi. Surely someone will find him huddling in a hole just like Saddam Hussein? Maybe the world will rest easier
after Lon swallows a big chunk of lead? Hey Lon! What's it going to be you murderous bastard? Surely you cannot walk the
streets alone? Surely all those bodyguards are expensive? Didn't Saddam have some money on his head?
Anywho...how's that working for you Lon...my friend...hahaha.
Do us all a favor and swallow a big one right now.
Today is January Fourth, in the year Twenty Ten.
Let the doubts and the paranoia begin!
Hey, don't get mad at the rooster because the sun came up again!
Here are some links for your pleasure...if you DARE!
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2010/01/when-to-shoot-colonels.html
http://www.webwarrioronline.com/index.php/the-news/65-when-to-shoot
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/firearms-freedom-act/
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/
http://www.mtssa.org/
http://marbut.com/
http://governor.mt.gov/
http://governor.mt.gov/governor/welcome.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi
please forward, publish, and promote widely!
Here's a scenario for you: What happens if this law passes, and a year or so down the road, a weapon manufactured in NH ends up used in a violent crime in NY? Bloomberg will go nuts, call all his rich federal buddies and insist something go down in NH. The result may not be pretty. But it will certainly be educational.
Where are the guns currently used in New York for violent crime being manufactured? Is Bloomberg holding those states liable for those crimes? I think not.
A gun manufactured in NH used in a crime in another state would be a case of interstate commerce and thus presumably fall under federal jurisdiction for purposes of taxation & regulation.
Who made the planes in 911
I believe the federal judiciary is allowed to preside over a constitutional dispute between two states or citizens from two different states.
Oh, so some states may get serious to protect their guns but they have ignored the "10th' and "nullification" and "interposition" when it came to protecting the lives of children in the womb in their respective states. The states have had no problem complying with the federal jack boot when it comes to killing babies but don't mess with their dear guns. Yea, killing children before birth is one of the freedoms that the feds impose on the several states but none of them seem to be getting too upset about that. That's right, Baby bloodshed is a libertarian mantra since it derives from the work "liberty" in the "14th" and libertarians are all about that even if it took the subpreme court to shove it down states throats. Are there any states ready to "interpose" on behalf of people who are too small to defend themselves against their own mothers and fathers. It appears not. But don't stand in the way of people ready to start shooting at something cause things are getting serious now. What's a few more dead people on top of the 50 million we already killed with no one to stand between them and their killers.
You are free to attempt such a thing in your own state to ban abortion on the state level. There is no reason why someone can't try that. I think in order for that to be successful you have to remind the federal courts that they have no jurisdiction between a citizen and the constitutionality of any state law with respect to its own constitution so a state law banning abortion might not be touchable by the federal courts.
I don't think that is a fair thing to say about libertarians. I think most libertarians are people who believe in liberalism in its classical form which has a lot to do with conservatism's limited government mantra but I think that if your own religions beliefs believe that a person exist since conception then its not out of the question to extend the law's protection to that person starting at conception.
Go NH! Go guns! Go marijuana! Go freedom! Maybe I can see a glimpse of real freedoms in my lifetime! May I live to see America live up to its hype!
I love it!! Why stop with just firearms? The States should expand this across the board and give the reprobates in D.C. a civics lesson on the federal system of government established by the Constitution.
This is also where the power of the local Sheriffs could come into play irrespective of whether this law is passed. Any federal agent attempting to intrude into the arena of intrastate commerce and making threats should be treated like any other criminal in the State...especially when acting unlawfully under color of law inside one of the several States.
The attitude of the BATF is the reason for making such actions a crime. It easy to say they will ignore such a declaration when there is no penalty. How ready will they be to enforce an unconstitutional law if they believe it will land them in jail, and a felony conviction may disqualify them for their position.
Dan
A GREAT course of action to take. The next thing they need to do is to provide real protection to their arms retailers. When Tennessee made this very same 10th Amendment declaration the ATF responded with an end-around move writing letters directly to gun shops informing them that they still have to enforce Fed "law". Gun shops in Tennessee are currently acting as if the State has done nothing at all!! For the States to be successful in this they also have to protect the businesses that are currently stuck between "a rock and a hard place".
The ATF is going to claim, and perhaps they might be correct, that if a person or business has a Federal Firearms License (FFL), then they are subject to ATF jurisdiction. So the "cleanest" way to implement this would be for whoever manufactures these New Hampshire guns is to NOT get a FFL.
I would immediately move to any state that nullified the federal income tax. I would also volunteer to act as a deputy, without expense to the state's taxpayers, to participate in any action to arrest federal employees attempting to act outside of their legitimate powers.
Congress repealed the Victory Tax Act (a.k.a. Income Tax) in May 1944. The US Supreme court also told the IRS that if they wanted to collect taxes from a citizen of any of the 50 states, that state has to be specifically named in the tax code (Title 26). Also the US Supreme court has ruled that the definition of income means "profit or gain from CORPORATE activity. Just a couple of tidbits.
Mr. Currie,
You state that... "...US Supreme court also told the IRS that if they wanted to collect taxes from a citizen of any of the 50 states, that state has to be specifically named in the tax code (Title 26)".
I'd be grateful if you'd cite the SCOTUS case that states such.
Thanks
Amen to that, sign me up also!!!
I wonder if we can also interposition on things that are also constitutional such as federal income tax. The law can still be technically legal for the federal government to attempt to enforce but states, acting on their own authority, can arrest IRS agents whenever they try to collect our money.
Umm the federal income tax is Illegal....they can only legally tax the state with direct taxes... not the people. research it :-)
This is a great step! I just hope they don't try to rush this to a vote this year and give it time to build support
Love the sanctions on state and federal officials that NH plans to insert into the legislation. GO NH!
"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."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Doug Goff, Ron Paul. Ron Paul said: Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws http://bit.ly/4BqQE5 #tlot #tcot #RonPaul [...]
[...] the original here: Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws | Tenth … By admin | category: Uncategorized | tags: 2007-case, basic, blackwater, charges, [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by RonPaul_2012: Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws http://bit.ly/4BqQE5 #tlot #tcot #RonPaul…
[...] Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws [...]
[...] joins New Hampshire, Missouri, Utah and a number of other states considering such legislation. Montana and Tennessee [...]
[...] bill would nullify Federal gun laws [10th Amendment movement] Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws*|*Tenth Amendment Center A bill filed in the New Hampshire legislature, if passed, would effectively nullify Federal gun [...]
[...] Posted by ZGACK Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws*|*Tenth Amendment Center A bill filed in the New Hampshire legislature, if passed, would effectively nullify Federal gun [...]
[...] January 4, 2010 · Leave a Comment From http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com: [...]
[...] New Hampshire is preparing to tell the federal government what it can do with its gun laws. [...]
[...] joins New Hampshire, Missouri, Utah and a number of other states considering such legislation. Montana and Tennessee [...]
[...] by Michael Boldin TenthAmendmentCenter.com [...]
[...] [...]
[...] January 5, 2010 by patriotsrising2010 Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws | Tenth Amendment Center. [...]
[...] We need more states proposing more legislation that limits what the feds can do. Good for them! LINK [...]
[...] Best of both worlds. 10th amendment assertion + arming the public. Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws*|*Tenth Amendment Center [...]
[...] Continue reading [...]
[...] Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws [...]
[...] 14 states that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year – most recently, New Hampshire, Virginia and [...]
[...] joins New Hampshire, Missouri, Utah and a number of other states considering such legislation. Montana and Tennessee [...]
[...] N.H. legislators want to take Firearms Freedom a step further This is really a 10th ammendment issue, but since it relates to the Firearms Freedom Act movement, I am posting it here. Mods, please relocate if this is not appropriate. Some New Hampshire legislators want to go a step further with the whole 10th ammendment/nullification/Firearms Freedom concept. They want to make it a felony for federal agents to enforce federal firearms laws in violation of this state law. I've no idea how much support this bill has, but let's face it – if states are serious about nullification under the 10th ammendment, this is the only way to do it. Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws|Tenth Amendment Center [...]
[...] 15 states that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year – most recently, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Virginia and [...]
[...] to 16 states that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year – most recently, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Virginia and [...]
[...] that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year – most recently, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Virginia and [...]
[...] to 22 states that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year – including New Hampshire, Wyoming, and [...]
[...] joins 21 other states considering similar legislation – including New Hampshire, Virginia and [...]
[...] joins New Hampshire, Missouri, Utah and a number of other states considering such legislation. Montana and Tennessee [...]
[...] joins New Hampshire, Missouri, Utah and a number of other states considering such legislation. Montana and Tennessee [...]