by Brian Greene, Utah State Representative
In Utah, I have introduced a bill for the 2013 Legislative session entitled the “State Supremacy Firearms Act.” It was released today as House Bill 114 (HB114). The bill is intended to serve as a declaration of state supremacy over the regulation of firearm activities occurring exclusively within the boundaries of Utah, and to put the Federal Government on notice that enforcement of any conflicting federal laws will not be allowed in Utah. Although the response to my bill has been overwhelmingly positive, there have been some critics. The most common argument I have encountered is based upon a misguided reliance on Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution—known as the “Supremacy Clause.” Blanket statements such as “federal law always trumps state law,” and “you’re wasting your time because the law is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause,” are typical negative reactions to my bill.
Many who favor more gun control and who support a dominant federal government actually believe that if Congress passes a law, or if the President makes an executive order, it is automatically the supreme law of the land. They love to point to the part of the Supremacy Clause that mandates that states must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law. Whether out of ignorance or convenience, they fail to look at the Supremacy Clause in its proper context—that which establishes the U.S. Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and U.S. Treaties as “the supreme law of the land.”
Hence, the Supremacy Clause only applies if an act of the Federal Government is in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. In other words, Federal laws are valid and are supreme, only to the extent that those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution.
To read the Supremacy Clause as big government proponents would have you—that ALL FEDERAL LAWS ARE SUPREME—would render the remainder of the Constitution meaningless. Why would there be a need for anything other than a Supremacy Clause? Why would the Constitution’s Framers have deliberated throughout the summer of 1787 over the other 4,500 words in the Constitution if their intent was to make the Federal Government supreme in all areas it unilaterally decided to act?
The reality is that we have a Constitution that delegates specific enumerated powers to the Federal Government—with the expectation that the Federal Government is not to act beyond those powers. In addition, we have 50 state constitutions that govern in the areas not delegated to the Federal Government. Together, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of each of the fifty states contemplate that each state government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. Because the Federal Government is one of enumerated and limited powers, it must show that a constitutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions.
But the opposite applies to the states—absent a Constitutional restriction on the states, state governments do not need constitutional authorization to act, specifically because it was the intent of the Framers that the powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” were to remain the jurisdiction of governments more local and more accountable to the people. Therefore, the general power of governing the health, safety and welfare of the people, generally referred to as the “police power,” was reserved to the states and not delegated to the Federal Government. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, U.S. Supreme Court (2012) (aka the Obamacare decision).
James Madison explained the nature of our dual sovereignty structure in Federalist No. 39: “the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Printz v. United States U.S. Supreme Court (1997).
Get the new book today!
The right of the people of Utah to keep and bear arms is not only a matter of public health and safety, subject to the exclusive police power of the State; but, interference with this right by the Federal Government is expressly prohibited by the Second Amendment to the Constitution which reads as follows: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Additionally, Article 1 Section 6 of the Utah State Constitution declares that “The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed . . ,“ and reserves to the State Legislature the exclusive authority of defining the lawful use of arms.
Any argument that the current gun control agenda coming out of our nation’s capitol is in pursuit of constitutionally authorized powers is simply unsupportable in the face of the of the 2nd Amendment’s prohibition against infringement, the 10th Amendment’s reservation to the states and their people of all powers not granted to the Federal Government elsewhere in the Constitution, and the protection of the right to keep and bear arms found in Utah’s Constitution. To conclude that the anticipated gun control measures being considered by the Federal Government will be entitled to supremacy status via the Supremacy Clause would require a blatant and intentional disregard of the abundant evidence to the contrary.
Those of us who have the privilege of serving our fellow citizens are duty bound to preserve, protect and defend the fundamental rights of those who elected us. The bill I have proposed is simply a reminder and a warning that Utah will neither violate nor ignore fundamental constitutional principles because of either a perceived or real crisis. In fact, it is in such times of crisis that “the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court (1992).
Well Brian I hope this works for you but I am so glad Supremacy is the statement of the day.
Screw Independence, forget liberty and by all means those who print up the best written Document wins.
Though I do see your reasoning I think it for all the wrong reasons. This is where it is convoluted even here in Utah which has its fare share of unjust laws all by itself.
Do we have the war on Drugs in this state?
How about those state Gun Laws?
How many Government Contracts do we have in this state with Federal Government?
And would those be with the United States Corporation or the We the People Federal Government?
Do we get any federal HWY funds do we?
I am so glad its all about convenience and not about liberty as defined; free from despotic Governments or Dominant Government.
How is getting a drivers license in this state, had to do that yet coming from somewhere else?
So do you represent the Sovereign independents for Liberty and just causes or do you only have your own agendas in mind?
Since I have declared myself independent and separate from all government Bodies participating in the crimes of today am I represented as well?
If the Second Amendment is Liberty, the ability to protect my own life against intrusion whether is be foreign or domestic, to be free from any other imposing any other idea of it then who are you? Why do I need Gun laws when really all I need is you to uphold these amendments that limit all of you and to keep my unalienable rights protected against all intrusion including your own.
My basis is Life itself and to include Liberty; freedom from any intrusions and to be allowed to pursue my dreams of happiness through achievements, yet all your laws, and regulations and supremacy by writings limits life, dominates life, and authorizes your authorities and not mine doesn’t it?
See I have a right to bare Arms because I am and individual deciding being, which you or any other carries no such authority to alter is and until you get on this plain you will find no agreement from me.
Making more bad laws because of bad laws is not a solution. Being honest with our unalienable rights is independent living in a nutshell and Liberty keeps that alive not Governments, Governments throughout time have stripped that away each and every time haven’t they?
Let us get real and nullify these gun laws both here and their, let us uphold the Second Amendment for those who decide as independents and let us start cutting our ties with federal Government corruptions. Until they become the Federal Government by the Constitution as We the People, let us nullify them out of existence and practice our unalienable rights with each other right here in Utah as a sovereign people capable of deciding for ourselves, how does that sound?
So change it to the peoples right to choose and not Governments authority to choose for us or I don’t believe you and am growing tired of unjust laws created by lawyers who value no such life at all.
@WilliamSchooler When someone says “then United States Corporation or We the People Federal Government” I stop reading because you have shown a lack of credibility. I know this theory. I have researched it extensively. It is based on nothing but misinterpretations, deliberate and otherwise.
@BrianKelsey
Thank you Brian, obviously everything is theory to you regardless of documentation and statements of fact. You are entitled to opinions but keep in mind what opinions are.
Interpretation, the lack of knowing the truth and putting something in its place, many Constitutionalist fit this description are you one of them?
So share with us Brian why are the Crimes of Washington DC so blatant and why is nothing just ever achieved, please share with us?
@WilliamSchooler
It is of course ill-rational to not attempt to reclaim every dollar and more from Washington we can. The only caveat to that printable is when we cannot at the end of the day sell(sacrifice) our rights nor essencal means of self-defense in that reclamation..
What we can and perhaps should do is instruct our state leaders to cheat and lie to Washington. To take advantage of the bumbling bureaucracy in taking as much as we can to leave as little as possible for those that support this madness.
If we should desire freedom, then we must make slavery unplesent & unprofitable for those who support it. If we should desire Independence, then we must make union unpalatable and undesirable to those who now cling to it.
We need only change our own behavioral to violate their presumptions, while never forgetting to teach to our children the proper resentment for this evil, as being the soul reason for our actions. Never let our enemy forget that they are attempting to govern a population that will never cease to bleed & take advantage of them.
They would be better off letting us go, than continuing to expend endless amounts of their own resources to control us.
While I am in total agreement with State Representative Brian Greene, a blatant and intentional disregard of the abundant evidence to the contrary is what Barrack Obama is all about This proposed legislation, if it becomes law, sets the stage for confrontation with the federal government. I hope that Utah and other states with similiar legislation are prepared, this could get ugly. .
Yes, ugly, as in 1861 ugly.
@ward7098
We can’t aford to get that ugly, not yet. We are simply not positioned to defend ourselfs that competely.
Neverforget after the last war the Federal Government spent the proceeding 150 years disarming our states & people both of the means and spirit of self-defense, while also arming itself with the means and spirit of concentrated power.
As it is right now, we are not prepared or able to openly fight them, even if we had to.
The Federal army is too large and centeraly controled, our cuture is too ignorant of the nature of our rights, and Washington’s systems of power are too vigorously designed to suppress such a rebellion.
I will not bore you with a laundry list various things that have been put into place to squash just that kind of rebellion to imperial power.
Instead I will simply suggest something that we can do, to change and undercut all of Washington’s Best laid plans, and perhaps over the long run defeat them.
What we can do is hide from, evade, and morally undercut & assault their ‘authority’. Building upon an already degenerating couture and our particular position with in that couture as conservatives who are among the last remaining law respecting bit.
We have in that position the power to bring down the system by simply bending our ideological ’knees’.
The real question that must be answered on an individual level is how to best utilize that power as to insure that the chips fall where we need them to build a new system secure in liberty & constitutional restraint.
You may find it is an easy thing to fell a tree not so easy is it to control exactly where it lands. Yet that is precisely what we must do in feling this tree, and we must do it soon. For this tree is coming down with or without our aid.
@Monorprise @ward7098 Don’t forget, their soldiers are on our side. Most Military and LEO that I have met aren’t going to put up with it. They bring all the technology and weapons with them. But I, like you pray it doesn’t come to that. Peacefully is preferred, but by any means necessary.
@RayChuffo oh, we are ready. I pray that it doesn’t come down to it. But rest assured, the people of the United States are ready to do whatever we have to, to insure the rights that GOD (not the government) gave us are preserved.
Indiana is considering a similar bill.
The elephant in the room that federal supremacy advocates refuse to acknowledge is that the entire federal government is a creation of the United States Constitution and does not exist without the enabling agreements and stipulations of that document.
All federal authority in all branches and in all matters springs from the various sections of the US Constitution. Without the “glue” [the agreements each state has become a party to] of the US Constitution there is nothing to prevent the states from each going their separate ways according to their own state constitutions.
And this makes the ATF no law enforcement but outlaws and thieves. by taxing out drinks, taking our guns with out due process.
Nice to see that some of our legislators, unlike our governor, actually have spines.
There will be a perpetual deficiency in or efforts until we tackle the money issue. Short of that, the Tyrannical Federal government can and will attempt to financially strangle us, as it is already doing. The Commonwealth (state) of Virginia is proceeding and moving to create its own new currency.Virginia could be the supplier of currency for all 50 states, if the 50 states do not go ahead and do so on their own. The people of the states are the ones who originally gave this power to the federal government, however, the federal government has been in breach, in violation, in abdication of those enumerated powers since 1913, and the disaster of the Tyranny of today is all about that specific breach. This breach has returned this Power, this Right to sound honest money BACK to the States, and the people.I would post a link to the new hybrid currency, however, in the past, my Posts with a direct link have been mistakenly ID’ed by the web sites computer as spam, and it has been unforgiving.It is called IVAMU, which is an acronym, which means (I)ntrinsic (V)alue (A)dded (M)onetary (U)nit. It is now “Open Sourced,” This should be enough information that you will easily find it by using any search engine.This new kind of money CONTAINS visible precious metals. It is far better then what came out of the Bretton Woods UN Monetary Conference, at the end of WW II, which was money, (USD) that CLAIMED to be backed by gold, at the ratio of $35.00 per ounce.We see how easily President Nixon placed the whole world onto FIAT currency, on August 15, 1971. We do NOT want nor need to travel down that same disastrous path today.Because of the US gold having already been STOLEN by the (non)Federal AND (no)Reserve, we need to use the precious metals and place them into the currency directly, as the IVAMU provides. This will enable We the people to regain sound, honest money, in widespread use. It will roll back inflation in a massive way, and it will calm the public with the markets, and make the present Tyranny far too expensive to continue.It will also roll back the WAR Drums, and Americans can then see the full RETURN of genuine prosperity. We ought to be able to attract the world with our principles, rather then using the sledge hammer of WAR.Check it out.Then think it all the way through for yourself, and determine in your own heart and mind if the IVAMU based currency Standard for Establishing the Value of Currency is an Idea that will work. (I believe you will ultimately agree.)It is simple, and it is easy to do. And, it FIXES the economic mess in a literal 24 hours. The current federal tyranny depends upon us not doing it.We will also gain the allegiance of the US Military by means of the IVAMU. Perhaps, Bob Shultz, (We the people Foundation) could be the next Civilian Head that the US Military might prefer over having to discredit and humiliate itself by going along with the present day tyranny and its usurpers.
Preamble to the Bill of Rights (this was not made part of the ratified BoR)
“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that further DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” (emphasis mine)
The Bill of Rights grants no rights but states SOME of the rights already held by “We the People”.
Unfortunately, “We the People”, or “the People referred to in the 2nd Amendment, no longer exist; they were deceived into choosing to become “citizens of the United States” under the14th Amendment.
These 14th Amendment federal citizens only have privileges given them by Congress (per the SCOTUS).
We, Americans, no longer enjoy God-given rights but, by being deceived, we have traded them in for man-granted privileges. All nice and legal, but not LAWFUL, according to the SCOTUS.
Why do you think the government can take your property away and give it to anyone it chooses? You think slaves really owned anything?
You think you have the right to get married? If you are exercising a God-given right, why do you have to pay the government for permission?
You think you have God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? The SCOTUS has stated the PART of Liberty is the RIGHT to travel. Now, if you have the God-given right to travel, why do you have to pay the government for permission to use your automobile on your streets?
Get the point? The SCOTUS stated “the power to tax is the power to destroy” and that a right therefore can not be taxed. They also stated that whatever it is called, if the purpose is to raise revenue, think license, permit, registration, etc., it is a TAX.
Please note that just because a decision does not sound “constitutional”, you must look at it from the view that it is. You then must look for HOW the decision could be constitutional. Previous SCOTUS decisions show how we Americans have been betrayed by our leaders.
Congress is using Article 1 Section 8: “To exercise EXCLUSIVE Legislation in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States..”
“Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”
Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)
“We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment…”
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)
PLEASE NOTE: The term “citizens of the United States” as used here can NOT be the same “citizens of the United States” used in the Original Constitution since those “citizens of the United States” did ” include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Or else for whom were the “Bill of Rights” written to protect?
If you want to learn how we got here so you can focus your energies on solutions, if it is not too late, read “A Patriot’s Thoughts” (now at bottom of the posts) at “cfhabeck.blogspot”
“Those of us who have the privilege of serving our fellow citizens are duty bound to preserve, protect and defend the fundamental rights of those who elected us. The bill I have proposed is simply a reminder and a warning that Utah will neither violate nor ignore fundamental constitutional principles because of either a perceived or real crisis. In fact, it is in such times of crisis that “the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court (1992).”
Very well put!