Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act with Teeth

By Michael Boldin on February 9, 2010 in State Sovereignty

by Michael Boldin

Wyoming Bill Seeks to Combat Federal Distortions of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment – Includes Penalties of up to Two Years in Prison for Federal Agents Violating the Law.

Wyoming State Representative Allen Jaggi has introduced a “Firearms Freedom Act” (FFA) for the state – it’s filed as House Bill 95 (HB95).

While the FFAâ€™s title focuses on gun regulations, it has far more to do with the federal violations of the commerce clause, which D.C. has used as an excuse to prohibit and regulate everything from wheat, to marijuana to guns.

If passed, the will would provide “that specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be exempt from federal regulation, including registration requirements”

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 other activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Wyoming joins 21 other states considering similar legislation – including New Hampshire, Virginia and Missouri.

In 2009, Tennessee and Montana passed a version of the Firearms Freedom Act into law. The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MTSSA) and the 2nd Amendment Foundation (SAF) have filed a federal lawsuit to validate the principles of the law.

NULLIFICATION

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.

When a state â€˜nullifiesâ€™ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or â€˜non-effective,â€™ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

But nullification is more than just a mere rhetorical statement or a resolution affirming the position of the legislature. To effectively nullify a federal law requires state action to prevent federal enforcement within the state.

INTERPOSITION

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. 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.

In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said:

â€œThe operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments existâ€

Here Madison and Webster assert what is implied in nullification laws â€” 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.

PENALTIES FOR FEDERAL AGENTS

HB95 includes this principle, and if passed, would impose penalties for violations of the law:

Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both.

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect to see as many as 30 states consider similar legislation in 2010.

CLICK HERE â€“ to view the Tenth Amendment Centerâ€™s Firearms Freedom Act Tracking Page

CLICK HERE â€“ Firearms Freedom Act Talking Points from the Tenth Amendment Center.
(tri-fold brochure, printable in color or b/w, pdf format)

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

About Michael Boldin

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.

View all posts by Michael Boldin →

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Subscribe and Follow

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

Interposition, Nullification, Wyoming HB95, Wyoming Sovereignty

Lessons from History: Nullification and the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832

The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery

34 comments

Newest | Oldest

Jetta

HB-95 has just been signed today by the Governor. It is reported the Governor sent a letter to the Legislature advising them about his reservations, and hasnt been made public yet.

Coben

dude this bill toatally rocks.

Monorprise

I’m not sure why they need to charge a Federal agent with a felony, any simple yet significant crime should be enough deterrence. Its not Like the Federal government is willing to have half their agents in jail, just so that some of them can illegally enforce unconstitutional federal laws. The Feds don't have that many agents and it is unlikely the agents that they do have are willing to spend time in jail and pay large fines just to do the job the Federal government is illegally paying them to do.

The point is to create a confrontational with the Federal government and if necessarily make it not worth their effort to enforce that unconstitutional and unpopular law in our State.
Basically 2 things could happen here:
1: the Feds could just back off and not push their luck.
2: they could push their luck and one or more of their agents could get arrested by the state. if that happens the agent will attempt to have the case bumped up to Federal court where the other federal employees in black robes will try to give their co-workers “Sovereign immunity” to the state law, calming that any of their actions being authorized by federal law gives them immunity to any State law regardless of the Constitutionality of that Federal law.
Which they will insist is constitutional unquestioningly. In effect they will declare themselves above the law by virtue of being the excursive definer of their own law.
We have seen this before in the Ruby Ridge case, where the State of Idaho attempt to put the federal sniper on trial for the murder of a unarmed woman and her baby.
The State Must resist allowing the Federal Agents to be tried in the Federal court for several reasons:
1: The Obvious conflict of interest for the Federal Government.
2: The the lack of Federal Constitutionality of the agents actions, puts them beyond Federal jurisdiction. (the State can not legally recognize them as a legitimate federal agent for that matter)
3: The Constitutional requirement of the 6th amendment:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
To for the state to allow the federal agent to be bumped up to the Federal court in a case in which the State has already determined that their action are beyond the scope of the Power granted to the Federal Government, would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
This is critical! They should stand trial in a State not Federal court, for breaking State not Federal law, and the trial must be by Jury. Preferably public, so that the Constitution and other relevant documents may be read to prove that this man is Not acting in accordance with legitimate federal powers.
In all Likelihood the Feds will seek to avoid this public “trial” and fate, as they do in fact have a lot to answer for. They must not be allowed to skirt the law. They must be reminded that they are not above the law and that we will no longer allow them to act as such.

Kristy

I urge All Wyomingites to do this before 8am tomorrow please.

Kristy

http://wyominggunowners.org/contact/hb-95/

Right now it's being held up in Committee.
They're trying to sweep Jaggi's HB-95 Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act - 2 under the rug, opting to back Miller's MUCH WEAKER HB-28 Firearms Freedom Act.

PLEASE click on the link above - you'll find a form that will send your SCATHING email to everyone on the Judiciary Committee AND Speaker of the House Colin Simpson.

Your emails need to be sent in BEFORE 8:00 TOMORROW MORNING!...

ggwyo

We may be small in populus status, but freedoms by right are ours and most Wyomingites have the pride and the backbone to stand up for themselves and take the responsiblities that go with it.

As a Wyoming citizen if they don't pass it, all of the representitives that vote against it could easily find themselves out of a job in 8 months.

B. Johnson

ggwyo: "As a Wyoming citizen if they don't pass it, all of the representitives that vote against it could easily find themselves out of a job in 8 months."

There's no reason to suffer for 8 months. All the states need to make recall laws so the voters can give the boot to bad-apple lawmakers and judges, IMO. We also need federal recall laws for the same reason.

ggwyo

True, but unlike most states Wyoming's legislators only get meet for about 20 days this year for the budget session, and won't convene again until next year after election time. The best part about having a citizen and part time government is so if they don't vote the way the people wish we can replace them without spending more of our tax dollars to do so (for a special election)

Monorprise

Wyoming may be the smallest state population wise, but they sure anti the smallest heart wise.

Escapee

MichaelBoldin: I was with you in that first paragraph, and then you lost me.

"The constitution doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to any person at all. It applies to the government – primarily the federal and in a few places, the states."

You lost me at the word "person". It is a word of art that you will see throughout U.S. law to identify one "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

If you are a state citizen like me, then we agree that the federal Constitution does not apply to us personally, but only thru our state representatives. If on the other hand you are a citizen of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof you are very much subject to the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment which is your charter to be in the States as a "resident".

Citizen, or resident person; you can't be both.

Michael Boldin

I can change the phrase to anybody. any individual. any human. And my meaning is the same.

I'm not talking about legalese garbage like you are. I'm referring to the constitution - and who or what it applies to.

Escapee

Michael Boldin: Now you've lost me again. You can't just ignore the enfranchisement of the 14th Amendment "person" by calling it legalese garbage. This doesn't encompass "anybody. any individual. any human." It deals with a specific class -- those within the jurisdiction.

And you cannot maintain that NO rights were given by the Constitution. The 14th gives those "within the jurisdiction"--human and corporate--every right they possess; a mini-constitution for derivative citizens of the U.S., if you will. These "persons" "subject to the jurisdiction" absolutely do NOT have the RTKBA, nor access to the other nine amendments. How could they? A large proportion of them aren't even human!

I agree with you that the first ten restrictions enumerated in the Bill of Rights are upon the federal government, but only against encroachment on the states and state citizens. It does not affect the relationship between the federal government and its "persons".

Escapee

MichaelBoldin: I was with you in that first paragraph, and then you lost me.

"The constitution doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to any person at all. It applies to the government â€“ primarily the federal and in a few places, the states."

You lost me at the word "person". It is a word of art that you will see throughout U.S. law to identify one "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Citizen, or resident person; you can't be both.

Kristy

I am very proud of Representative Jaggi and all his hard work in getting this bill released, I especially like the protection and penalty clauses.
This bill really has some weight and teeth to it! Which is what we need, just because legislation passes doesn't mean it won't be challenged. It will be up to the state's to defend the legislation and this clauses I believe will help Wyoming do just that if it passes.

Escapee

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." End of subject.

But that's not what you all came here to talk about, is it? You want to talk about FIREARMS, a federally regulated class of items.

Further, some of you belong to an association that spread the incredibly ignorant idea that the right to keep and bear Arms is GIVEN to you by the U.S. Constitution.

No wonder you have no RTKBA. You don't understand what it is!

B. Johnson

Escapee: "But that’s not what you all came here to talk about, is it? You want to talk about FIREARMS, a federally regulated class of items."

The problem is that you have so far failed to reference explicit language in the Constitution which clearly delegates to Congress the power to regulate intrastate civilian firearms.

Escapee

B. Johnson: You win. There is no clear delegation of power to Congress to regulate intrastate civilian firearms, nor the price of locally-produced corn, milk, electricity, insurance, banking, water quality, nor dog licenses (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14cfrag1_user.html footnote 7.)

Yet you don't win: The feds DO control all of the above, via the Commerce Clause which provides for federal regulation of interstate commerce, and thru the 14th Amendment which creates federal "persons"--both human and corporate--which are controlled (and taxed) as they "reside" within the states and "within the jurisdiction".

That is my main point, and the reason "Constitutionalists" have been getting their asses whipped. My minor point, about this thread's topic the RTKBA, is that there is a clear difference between Arms, which are reserved to state control (and to the People--Article X), and FIREARMS, which are a narrowly-defined class of GOODS IN TRANSIT which are un-argueably subject to federal legislation.

Hawaii v Mendoza

Aloha B.: There is a missing link in all the above here, and that is the pretext for all the perversions Roosevelt and his progeny have created.
Federally, the root of the cancer we're complaining about here is the unabated state of national emergency declared by Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. It has enabled a variety of abominations from the theft of our gold, to the GCA of '68, 'executive orders', etc. In turn, it was built on a tweaked version of the Trading w/the Enemy Act of 1917, and has helped to make us all the subjects of federal tyranny and micromanagement.
We can teach and learn the Constitution all we want, but if the Constitution has been de facto suspended by a contrived 'emergency', at the federal level, we're dealing w/the symptoms, not the cause.
These 9th/10th Amendment/nullification efforts at the state and local level are probably some of the best tools we have left to save this Republic.

B. Johnson

Escapee: "Yet you don’t win: The feds DO control all of the above, via the Commerce Clause which provides for federal regulation of interstate commerce, and thru the 14th Amendment which creates federal “persons”–both human and corporate–which are controlled (and taxed) as they “reside” within the states and “within the jurisdiction”."

You're evidently in denial that the eight justices that FDR ended up nominating to the USSC perverted the Founder's intentions for the commerce clause. They did so to enable corrupt, power-hungry federal lawmakers to overstep their constitutional limits. And by doing so, FDR's puppet justices scandalously ignored that the states (the people), not the federal government, are the ultimate seat of authority in the good old USA.

The problem, as I've ranted elsewhere, is that citizens have not been teaching their children the Constitution and its history for many generations, particularly the constitutionally enumerated principle of state sovereignty. As a consequence, citizens are oblivious to the fact that the corrupt federal government has been wrongly overstepping its constitutional limits for many decades.

So it's a matter of reconnecting citizens with the Constitution, IMO, so that citizens can use their voting power to destroy the phony powers now associated with the Oval Office and Congress.

B. Johnson

Escapee: "Yet you donâ€™t win: The feds DO control all of the above, via the Commerce Clause which provides for federal regulation of interstate commerce, and thru the 14th Amendment which creates federal â€œpersonsâ€â€“both human and corporateâ€“which are controlled (and taxed) as they â€œresideâ€ within the states and â€œwithin the jurisdictionâ€."

So it's a matter of reconnecting citizens with the Constitution, IMO, so that citizens can use their voting power to destroy the phony powers now associated with the Oval Office and Congress.

B. Johnson

Escapee: "But thatâ€™s not what you all came here to talk about, is it? You want to talk about FIREARMS, a federally regulated class of items."

The problem is that you have so far failed to reference explicit language in the Constitution which clearly delegates to Congress the power to regulate intrastate civilian firearms.

MichaelBoldin

That's a major misunderstanding of the constitution. NO rights are given to you by the constitution. They are yours by your birthright.

The constitution doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to any person at all. It applies to the government - primarily the federal and in a few places, the states.

The 2nd amendment, like the rest of the bill of rights, is a restriction on government power as a way to ensure your RTKBA!

B. Johnson

MichaelBoldin: "That's a major misunderstanding of the constitution. NO rights are given to you by the constitution. They are yours by your birthright."

If we're on the same sheet of music, as you undoubtedly know, James Madison, regarded as the Father of the Bill of Rights, thought the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. After all, regardless that the 1st A., for example, expressly prohibits Congress from regulating our basic rights, the Constitution never expressly delegates such powers to Congress in the first place. So Madison probably saw the BoR as "redundant."

The problem is that citizens have forgotten the delegated powers aspect of the Constitution and consequently fall into the trap of thinking that we get our rights from the BoR. I've been there.

B. Johnson

Where does the Constitution expressly delegate to the federal government the power to regulate intrastate civilian firearms in the first place? The 2nd A. is certainly not a delegation of such power. And relevant clauses in Section 8 of Article I clearly apply only to military firearms, IMO; corrections welcome.

The reason that I continue to question the constitutionality of federal firearms regulations for civilians is this. Timelines for such regulations typically show that there was nothing in the books until the FDR era. And given how FDR and Congress blatantly ignored their constitutional limits in those days, I wouldn't be surprised if the feds actually had no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate civilian firearms.

And not only are bills like HB95 and New Hampshire's HB1285 definitely a step in the right direction to protect gun rights and help to restore state sovereignty, but I hope to see state legislation which eventually puts a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes. (Did you hear that bankrupt California?)

Escapee

B.Johnson: "Where does the Constitution expressly delegate to the federal government the power to regulate intrastate civilian firearms in the first place?" That would be the Commerce Clause, (Article I, section 8, paragraph 3)

"I wouldn’t be surprised if the feds actually had no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate civilian firearms." Do you have a cite to support this? Have you studied the definition of "firearm" (26 USC 5845(a)? Would you be surprised if you were to find that a firearm is not Arms?

"I hope to see state legislation which eventually puts a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes." Constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes are illegal already.

We need citizens who understand the law to defend themselves against all abuses of government, not more ill-conceived political fixes.

Tom

Why would you think it's simply obvious that the commerce clause justified regulation of _intrastate_ firearms, such that you give that answer without any elaboration?

del francis

is there a government form to register just guns or do they have to be firearms?

is my pistol a firearm because everybody says it is or is there a law that says what is a firearm and what is not?

if I call my weapons guns or arms and not firearms do I need a license at all?

sockpuppet

Escapee, do you mean that if I call my Beretta a pistol, or a weapon, or a gun, or an arm instead of calling it a firearm, and if I don't register it as a firearm, the Feds can't regulate it as a firearm, unless of course it actually does conform to 26 USC 5845(a)?

Sounds too easy.

Guest

Escapee:
Title 26 is part of the Internal Revenue Code and doesn't apply in this context. The language of 26 USC section 5845(a) applies only to chapter 26 of the US Code (as it states therein).
Title 26 is not relevant to the issue B Johnson raised and it's very odd that you seem to think it is relevant. The definition of the term 'firearm' in the Internal Revenue Code does not have any relevance to the question B. Johnson posed.
There is no explicit provision in the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate the sale of firearms. The clause that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states doesn't apply since the sale of a firearm from person A to person B is not a transaction involving ANY state.
Even if you want to misread the so-called "interstate commerce clause" to give Congress the power to regulate transactions occurring between citizens of different states, B. Johnson specifically asked about INTRA state transactions - not INTER state transactions. It's clear he's drawing a distinction between transactions that do not cross state borders. So, again, there is no Congressional authority.
I can't tell what your problem is but it seems as if you just want to argue for the fun of it.
For everyone else here who is trying to move the discussion forward, it's a shame.
Anyway, it's also a shame citizens feel they have to pass a law such as this to clarify rights they already have and were clearly not delegated away to government.

Escapee

Tom: Thank you for the question. I failed to make my point clearly.

A "firearm" is defined at 26 USC 5845(a), as cited in my February 10 post above.

Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code.

So, how do intrastate Arms become "firearms"? The owner declares them to be! As does the writer of the above article, the Wyoming legislature, the NRA, and 99 and 99/100ths of the mislead American public.

Help me out here. Is there any way to state this more plainly?

B. Johnson

Escapee: "Where does the Constitution expressly delegate to the federal government the power to regulate intrastate civilian firearms in the first place?" That would be the Commerce Clause, (Article I, section 8, paragraph 3)"

I'm not interested in PC perversions of the commerce clause. Not only does the Constitution not expressly give Congress the power to regulate civilian firearms in the same manner that the clauses of Article I, Section 8 delegate other powers, but you are ignoring that Jefferson had clearly indicated that the state legislatures have exclusive control over intrastate commerce.

The problem is that people like you ignore that activist justices nominated by FDR perverted the Founder's intentions for Clause 3, wrongly ignoring that Congress is required to comply with Article V to have any hope of expanding its powers, in this case to regulate intrastate civilian firearms.

Escapee

"I wouldnâ€™t be surprised if the feds actually had no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate civilian firearms." Do you have a cite to support this? Have you studied the definition of "firearm" (26 USC 5845(a)? Would you be surprised if you were to find that a firearm is not Arms?

"I hope to see state legislation which eventually puts a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes." Constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes are illegal already.

We need citizens who understand the law to defend themselves against all abuses of government, not more ill-conceived political fixes.

@TdashPaine

I like this.....

713

Now that is sticking it to the man XD

Trackbacks

Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act with Teeth | The Ruthless Truth blog says:

February 9, 2010 at 6:17 pm

[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/09/wyoming-firearms-freedom-act-with-teeth/ Easy AdSense by Unreal Bookmark It Hide Sites [...]
» SFAWBN Archive » Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act with Teeth says:

February 12, 2010 at 1:37 pm

[...] Tenth Amendment Center – Fri 12 Feb ‘10 [...]
Wyoming Bill Seeks to Combat Federal Distortions of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment â€“ Includes Penalties of up to Two Years in Prison for Federal Agents Violating the Law. « The PPJ Gazette says:

February 14, 2010 at 4:11 pm

[...] 10th Amendment Center – Wyoming State Representative Allen Jaggi has introduced a â€œFirearms Freedom Actâ€ (FFA) for the state â€“ itâ€™s filed as House Bill 95 (HB95). [...]
Wyoming House Passes Firearms Freedom Act | Tenth Amendment Center Blog says:

March 2, 2010 at 3:16 pm

[...] week, the Wyoming house overwhelmingly passed House Bill 95 (HB95), the Firearms Freedom [...]
Militant Libertarian » Wyoming Legislature Passes the Firearms Freedom Act says:

March 3, 2010 at 11:56 pm

[...] on its 3rd reading, the Wyoming Senate passed HB95, the Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 30â€“0. (h/t Kristy Tyrney, [...]
States Move to Reclaim Power Over Intrastate Commerce | Tenth Amendment Center says:

March 12, 2010 at 10:09 am

[...] of Wyoming Governor stood up and gave a resounding NO to this by signing into law House Bill 95 (HB0095), the Firearms Freedom Act. Wyoming joins Montana, Tennessee and Utah as the fourth state to make [...]
Montana firearms freedom act - (MT) - Page 4 - City-Data Forum says:

March 13, 2010 at 8:15 am

[...] in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens," he continued.See also Boldin's site: Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act with Teeth*|*Tenth Amendment Center (turn off javascript if it slows your computer to a crawl — I'll have to get back to it in another [...]
HOMELAND REBELLION « raysrope says:

March 13, 2010 at 12:07 pm

[...] According to an analysis by Michael Boldin at the Tenth Amendment Center, the federal government has used the Commerce Clause, which authorizes the regulation of commerce that crosses state lines, to regulate just about anything. [...]
Random Associations » Wyoming’s version says:

March 14, 2010 at 2:35 pm

[...] The Wyoming legislature has passed and the Governor has signed into law a bill that will add some teeth to their version of FFA read about it at the 10th Amendment Center here. [...]
State plan fines feds $2,000 over gun rules says:

March 15, 2010 at 7:51 am

[...] According to an analysis by Michael Boldin at the Tenth Amendment Center, the federal government has used the Commerce Clause, which authorizes the regulation of commerce that crosses state lines, to regulate just about anything. [...]
5th state exempts guns. Is Washington noticing? « SUFFOLK COUNTY LIBERTY REPORT Frank Seabrook says:

March 16, 2010 at 3:25 pm

[...] an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a [...]
Rebellion in America heats up as 5th state exempts guns : STATESMAN SENTINEL says:

March 16, 2010 at 5:29 pm

[...] an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a [...]
We Are Change Colorado Springs » Blog Archive » 5th state exempts guns. Is Washington noticing? says:

March 17, 2010 at 6:18 am

[...] an analysis by theÂ Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a [...]
State To Fine Feds $2,000 Over Gun Rules « Defund & Disobey says:

March 17, 2010 at 2:03 pm

[...] According to an analysis by Michael Boldin at the Tenth Amendment Center, the federal government has used the Commerce Clause, which authorizes the regulation of commerce that crosses state lines, to regulate just about anything. [...]
South Dakota Exempts it’s Residents from Federal Firearms Laws « Survival Club says:

March 18, 2010 at 7:57 am

[...] an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a [...]
South Dakota Exempts it’s Residents from Federal Firearms Laws — The Survival Club says:

March 18, 2010 at 9:20 am

[...] an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a [...]
5 states assert gun rights « Fellowship of the Minds says:

March 19, 2010 at 6:51 am

[...] an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a nullification: “Laws of the federal government are to be [...]
State plan fines feds $2,000 over gun rules | The Ohio Free Press says:

April 4, 2010 at 4:52 pm

[...] According to an analysis by Michael Boldin at the Tenth Amendment Center, the federal government has used the Commerce Clause, which authorizes the regulation of commerce that crosses state lines, to regulate just about anything. [...]
REBELLION IN AMERICA: State No. 6 tells feds to stuff their gun regs « SUFFOLK COUNTY LIBERTY REPORT Frank Seabrook says:

April 7, 2010 at 9:39 pm

[...] an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a [...]
Nashville's SuperTalk 99.7 WTN "Taxation Town Hall" After Action Report, by Ron Jones says:

April 12, 2010 at 6:16 am

[...] Wyoming's recent 'firearms freedom act' for an example with real "teeth" …This template could be extended to health care, education, gas tax, business regulations, and [...]
Health-care mandates could be ‘null and void’ « Take Charge Generation says:

April 21, 2010 at 1:36 pm

[...] InÂ an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center,Â the gun laws were described as nullification. [...]
Health-care bill may be ‘Null and Void’ « Take Charge Generation says:

April 21, 2010 at 5:17 pm

[...] InÂ an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center,Â the gun laws were described as nullification. [...]
Health-care mandates could be ‘null and void’ » Conservative Watch News says:

April 21, 2010 at 6:13 pm

[...] an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a [...]
Health-care Legislation May be ‘Null and Void’ « Take Charge Generation says:

April 21, 2010 at 8:28 pm

[...] InÂ an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center,Â the gun laws were described as nullification. [...]
South Dakota Exempts Guns. Is Washington Noticing? 5th so Far says:

May 12, 2010 at 11:22 pm

[...] an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a [...]
Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act and other legislative info #tcot #p2 #billofrights #GunControl #DemandAPlan | Ivy Mike Cafe says:

January 10, 2013 at 7:44 am

[...] proposed Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act. Read [...]
Wyoming Gun Law – Jail Terms for Feds | Independence Declaration says:

January 10, 2013 at 10:22 am

[...] According to an analysis by Michael Boldin at the Tenth Amendment Center, the federal government has used the Commerce Clause, which authorizes the regulation of commerce that crosses state lines, to regulate just about anything. [...]

Navigation