As codified in law with the 2nd Amendment, the People did not delegate the power to regulate or control the ownership of firearms to the federal government. And, as the 10th Amendment makes clear, all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or to the People themselves.

State legislation to nullify federal gun laws or regulations focus on this basic and essential principle, and propose to make state law that the federal government is effectively banned from such regulations and laws within the state.

Legend: Blue – Introduced. Yellow – Passed one or more houses.
Red – Became Law. Black – Failed Vote.

12 thoughts on “Federal Gun Laws Nullification

  1. pat

    What is wrong here? As most firearm owners know, the Second Amement (spelling not my strongest point) is to be garenteed not slowly chipped away. There are still 49 states who have not addressed this. Come on people, Get it togather here……

  2. BigIron

    This particular article misstates the 10th Amendment in a very significant way. The article states: " … all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or to the People themselves." which is INCORRECT as stated because it leaves out one VERY necessary part of the 10th Amendment that is often overlooked in Constitutional arguments especially with regard to the 2nd Amendment. That missing part is: " … nor prohibited by it to the States, …" which means that all prohibitions, unless specifically directed otherwise, apply equally to the States as well as the United States (Federal). The 2nd Amendment is clearly a "prohibition" and also enumerates an individual "right" by virtue of the lower-case "p" in people. The collective People (all the people) is denoted by the "upper" case "p" as in "We, the People, …". All in all, the Framers wrote in a very brief, simple, clear, concise language that did not require a lawyer to interpret just a modest education (clearly our educational system has fallen fallow),

    • You make an important point about prohibitions on the states, but misunderstand the prohibitions themselves.

      Yes, the states are not authorized to exercise powers in those areas that the constituition specifically prohibits them from engaging in. For example, Aricle I Section 10 of the constitution prohibits states from coining their own money.

      But, since the entire constitution was written as a rulebook for the federal government (except where it specifically applies to the states), the statement you made here:

      "which means that all prohibitions, unless specifically directed otherwise, apply equally to the States as well as the United States "

      would be correct if modified to this:

      "which means that all prohibitions, unless specifically mentioning the states, apply solely to the federal government. "

      This is one of the most common mistakes of reading the constitution – and has been the source of much of the expansion of federal power that we have seen over the last 100 years.

  3. Brian

    I think it is important, to note. The first 10 amendments are known, as the Bill of Rights. These, encompass the inalienable rights of the people or People. Therefore, states can not nullify an inalienable right. The reason the Founding Fathers insisted, on the Bill of Rights. They feared the exclusion of our inalienable rights.
    therefore the Second Amendment may not be denied by the Federal, state or any other governmental branch.
    Some states would not ratify the Constitution, without the Bill of Rights.

    • The bill of rights applies to the federal government – not to the states. There is NO serious debate about that from the founding.

      The 14th amendment was ratified after the civil war – and from THERE people claim that the bill of rights applies to the states (even though we see that as incorrect). But there is nothing from the founders that would back up your claim – in fact, the opposed such proposals.

  4. David crockett

    "Michael Boldin ", if your appraisal of the bill of rights only applying to the federal government was and is correct, then you would have to agree that all federal laws pertaining to firearms or any other arm would still be unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment. the "shall not be infringed" part, ya Know. ;)

    • 2 things.

      1. it IS historically correct. There is no serious debate on this, just massive misinformation amongst the public who have been spoon fed to believe central control is what the founders created. wrong

      2. ALL federal laws pertaining to firearms are most certainly unconstitutional.

  5. fred

    oklahoma entered a freedom from federal firearm act 02-01-2010,

    Where is it here????

Leave a Reply