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.

13 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.

    • I want to add to MichaelBoldin response on your misconception of the portion you are referencing, “… nor prohibited by it to the States,…”. It’s taking out of context a lot, but when you read the Constitution in its entirety, you’ll find that it’s not a call to say, if the government makes a law, against the constitution and it prohibits a State or all States from something, it isn’t a legally prohibiting law. Because it originally infringed on Constitutional rights or broke Constitutional Laws in one way or another. Thus the Government never got the right from the States or the People to make that law or make that claim of power to prohibit in the first place. Excluding the States from an Actual Prohibition.

      It’s essentially what came first, the chicken or the Egg, and in this case it all depends on if the Government was given the right/power to actually make the Prohibition. Otherwise, the States/People are exempt from it. Not to mention, the fact that based on Article V of the Constitution, the States can make new Amendments to the Constitution without Federal Government approval or ability to deny it. It simply is, if the States overwhelmingly approve a new Constitution, it is, period.

      The United States is a country of 50 individual countries, not governed by a centralized government, but maintained in a state of perpetual union under what appears to be a centralized government. All the powers given to the Federal Government by the Constitution are to maintain a peace between the States, and to protected them fairly and evenly. Nothing more, it’s the reason why the States are given so much power overall.

      Amendment XVII should be repealed and the power of the Senate should return to the State. This was one example of politics trying to fix something with a problem. By eliminating the ability of the Senators being elected by the State Legislators, it conflicts between the people’s representation and the State’s Representation. The House of Representatives is the people’s voice in Congress. It holds the power to impeach the President, so that if the people are dissatisfied by the head of the Executive branch, it is directly brought to the attention through your representatives. Equally the Senate, representing the State’s interest, will be in charge of the impeachment trials. Senators are also closely related to the Executive Branch in which they choose replacements for such positions as the Vice President. The point is power is equally divided among them but when the people choose the Senators and the Representatives it no longer has the same weight. Allowing inconsistencies, improper challenges in congress, and reckless politics in general. The second thing we need to acknowledge is that adding more limitations like term limits for Congress will only prevent our government for operating correctly. Many will ask why or how, but the consider this. Who votes for Representatives and Senators? Who keep supporting those old politicians you want so bad to limit? It’s the people’s fault they are making the bad decisions not the systems fault. It’s the same issue we have today with cops. The President and many others are blaming ALL cops as being bad apples, removing the blame from those individuals who are truly bad cops and not just that, stressing the one system of support in our safety we have. You don’t fix a system through anarchy, you pin point your attacks where it is warranted. Limitation of terms prevents senators and representatives from actually gaining the necessary knowledge, experience and time sensitive acts required to literally legislate. That’s not a bad thing, rather an important reason to be active in voting and knowing who you’re voting for, including not voting for them after they were a bad politician. By returning the Senate back to the State legislator, it pushes the people to be active and smarter about who the vote for in the State Government. In fact, the only important elections for people are that of the State Government, and the House or Representative. Because they are the only things that represent us. The Executive Branch is voted by the Electors that are voted by the State Legislators and those Legislators are voted by the people. Keep the Constitution intact and stop making bad changes to something with little need for change and if you want change, consider how much it would affect everything instead of what you personally think is the best decision. Who does it benefit in the end.

  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

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

clear formSubmit