A Geek With Guns

Chronicling the depravities of the State.

Archive for the ‘State Rights’ tag

Montana Man to Take On Federal Gun Regulations

without comments

Montana was the first state to pass a Firearms Freedom Act. What the Firearms Freedom Act does is exempt any gun manufactured, sold, and used exclusively in one state from federal firearm regulations. The federal government claims the ability to regulate firearms comes from their ability to regulate interstate commerce, but if no business ever crosses state lines then the federal government’s excuse for firearm regulations doesn’t apply. Unfortunately nobody has been willing to use one of these laws to go head to head against the federal government, until now:

With a homemade .22-caliber rifle he calls the Montana Buckaroo, Gary Marbut dreams of taking down the federal regulatory state.

He’s not planning to fire his gun. Instead, he wants to sell it, free from federal laws requiring him to record transactions, pay license fees and open his business to government inspectors.

For years, Mr. Marbut argued that a wide range of federal laws, not just gun regulations, should be invalid because they were based on an erroneous interpretation of Congress’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. In his corner were a handful of conservative lawyers and academics. Now, with the rise of the tea-party movement, the self-employed shooting-range supplier finds himself leading a movement.

Ignore the whole tea party movement comment, this has nothing to do with the tea party movement and everything to do with basic common sense any person living in America should be able to understand. If all business relating to an item stays within the borders of a state then no interstate commerce occurs and the federal government has no legitimate claim to regulating that item.

Mr. Marbut is manufacturing his own brand of .22 rifles in Montana. According to the Firearms Freedom Act any firearm falling under the legislation must be marked to indicate that the firearm is for exclusive use in the state it was manufactured.

Although I’m doubting Mr. Marbut will win (after all if the case gets to the Supreme Court they will likely rule in favor of the federal government as they are an arm of the federal government) but I’m hoping to be wrong. I’m glad somebody has finally come forth and called the federal government on their shenanigans and overreach by abusing the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

Written by Christopher Burg

July 15th, 2011 at 10:00 am

Senator Boxer Trying to Abolish Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry Laws

with 2 comments

Let me just say this right away, fuck you Barbara Boxer and fuck all of you who voted for her. Seriously you can all just go sodomize yourselves with retractable batons. Why am I so angry at her and her supporters? Because she is trying to pass a federal law, S.176, that would abolish shall issue and constitutional carry laws throughout the United States.

The bill, references as the Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011, would strip each state of their right to issue carry permits however they saw fit. It would make all states may issue. And of course anybody applying for a permit would have to “demonstrate good cause.” You want my good cause? The second amendment. Need another? My right to self-defense granted by the fact I exist.

Those of you in California may want to makeup for your mistake of sending Boxer to D.C. You can do this by starting a recall election. I think there is grounds for that being she just introduced legislation that would completely ignore the United States Constitution and the entire concept of states’ rights. If you do recall I’ll completely ignore the whole transgression of sending her to D.C. in the first place. Seriously it’ll be like it never happened. Heck I’ll even say something nice about your state. Deal?

Written by Christopher Burg

February 2nd, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Being Anti-Gun on the Cheap

without comments

Man it’s not easy for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Civil Rights. First they start a fundraiser to get $10,000 and months in they only have $20.00. Second they can’t seem to get any major gun control legislation through. What’s such an organization to do?

Well according to War on Guns they have decided to jump on bored an almost assured victory so they have something to toss on their resume without having to actually do work or spend money.

The Brady Bunch are signing on to the federal lawsuit against the Firearm Freedom Act. Being this is a case where the federal government is stomping on sovereign states’ rights it’s almost a sure bet the feds will win. I don’t think there has been a huge states’ rights victory since the ending of the Civil War.

Written by Christopher Burg

May 20th, 2010 at 10:00 am

Reinforcements Have Arrived

without comments

A while ago Montana passed this country’s first Firearms Freedom Act. So under Montana law any gun produced in and made exclusively for sale and use in Montana are exempt from federal laws. Well the ATF decided to have none of that and brought legal repercussions against the state. Well Says Uncle let us know that reinforcements have arrived in the form of Utah, Wyoming, and South Dakota. All three states, who also have firearms freedom acts of their own, filed friends of the count briefs on the side of Montana.

Although I wouldn’t put money on Montana winning (after all states have no sovereignty anymore) I would absolutely love it if they did. The federal government has been using the interstate commerce clause to strip the states of rights for a long while now. It’s about time the states stood up and said if goods and produced and sold within their borders it’s not interstate commerce and the federal government should keep their noses out of it.

Written by Christopher Burg

April 12th, 2010 at 10:00 am

Posted in Gun Rights

Tagged with ,

Utah Passes Firearms Freedom Act

without comments

Well it appears as though Utah has passed their own Firearms Freedom Act in a vote of 19 to 10. That’s good news to hear.

I know a lot of people believe these laws are only symbolic and can not actually be enforced but I think it’s also an act of defiance against the federal government. Regardless of the enforceability of these acts they do serve as a big middle finger from the states that enact them to the federal government. I think more of this style of defiance is needed honestly, the states really need to take back their rights. I’m hoping Minnesota passes this act when it comes up for vote as well.

Written by Christopher Burg

February 4th, 2010 at 9:41 am

Senators Move to Make Texting While Driving Illegal

without comments

Remember that post yesterday about the study that said people who text while driving are 23 times more likely to crash their car? Well to prove once again that no tragedy (or study in this case) should be left unexploited some senators on capital hill are going to introduce legislation to make texting while driving illegal…

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQIakqMFgrC0KAeMfxrWUQCz2U2QD99O2NL04

The legislation will use the federal government’s favorite weapon against state rights, money. Pretty much if a state doesn’t introduce a law making texting while driving illegal they lose their federal highway funding.

It’s funny how the states only have rights when it’s convenient for the federal government. For instance the states have a right to make their own gun laws when national reciprocity is being voted on but they don’t have the right to make their own gun laws when they want to make any gun sold and used in their state exempt from federal regulation. Well it looks like states don’t have the right to make legislation when it comes to their drivers either.

That said texting while driving is just fucking stupid. But just because something is fucking stupid doesn’t mean it should be made illegal. The fact of the matter is there is no way to enforce this law since phones can be used for a great many things. For instance my phone has Google Maps on it which I use to navigate my way around. But being I’m holding the phone to look at the map it looks like I’m texting.

Likewise reckless driving is already illegal hence if you are swerving around on the road while texting you are committing a crime and will most likely be pulled over. This law in effect will only exist to give police another reason to pull you over without having any actual reason to do so (sort of like Minnesota’s new mandatory seat belt law).

Written by Christopher Burg

July 29th, 2009 at 8:25 pm

S.1390 Amendment for National Conceal Carry Reciprocity

without comments

I heard rumors that an amendment was going to be made to S.1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, to allow national concealed carry reciprocity. I see the amendment was made…

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1390/show

Amendment 1680…

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

The amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune of South Dakota. The text of the amendment is available here…

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=s1618

And for those of you who don’t want to open another link here is the text…

SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) Findings.–Congress finds the following:

(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

(5) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(7) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

(b) In General.–Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following: Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof–

(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–

(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–

(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

(b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall–

(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to–

(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.”.

(c) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.

(d) Severability.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(e) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

It seems well written to me. Normally I’m against any bill that would mandate rule from the federal government over the states. But in this case the federal government is doing their job and enforcing the Bill of Rights by further saying, “the right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed.”

It still leaves the ability for states without any means of conceal carry to keep people from legally defending themselves so don’t think this will give you constitutional rights in Illinois. Hopefully this passes as it will further strengthen the constitution and help people exercise their right of self defense.

Written by Christopher Burg

July 20th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Posted in Gun Rights

Tagged with , ,

Minnesota Firearms Freedom Act

without comments

Fire Montana, then Texas, and now Minnesota. Since I felt this deserved it’s own post and I needed time to read through the law I didn’t mention it when I posted the results of the open carry picnic. But Representative Tom Emmer stopped by and let us know about the Firearms Freedom Act he authored for Minnesota…

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF2376&ssn=0&y=2009

Like other similar acts this one would exempt firearms manufactured in Minnesota for sale in Minnesota from federal regulation and registration. It seems like a pretty simple and good piece of legislation although it does have text in it to exempt machine guns from this bill. Either way it’s a great idea and everybody in Minnesota needs to write their state representatives about it.

Granted after receiving my reply from Ron Latz about his stance on several second amendment issues I’m doubting he’ll support it but I wrote him anyways.

Written by Christopher Burg

June 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

There’s Lies, There’s Damned Lies, and Then There is the Brady Campaign

without comments

Via Snow Flakes in Hell it appears Doug Pennington of The Brady Bunch believes all the federal gun control laws can be counted on one hand…

http://www.sundaypaper.com/More/Archives/tabid/98/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4142/Gun-Loving-SonsofGuns.aspx

Hell he doesn’t think he even needs a full hand…

What people don’t realize, at the national level, at least, is that I can count the federal gun laws on the books on one hand. I don’t even need all five fingers to do it

Hell the Brady Campaign doesn’t even agree with that. Straight from their mouths (it’s an archive.org link of their sight because I refuse to give those pricks any traffic and they will probably change this) there are six federal gun control laws (Doug must be a kind of freaky seven fingered mutant or something)…

http://web.archive.org/web/20080115230225/http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/federal/pages.php?page=6fedlaws

Of course Snow Flakes in Hell points out some other federal gun control methods.

Source: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/06/08/can-count-federal-gun-laws-on-one-hand/

Written by Christopher Burg

June 8th, 2009 at 10:56 pm

Minnesota Passes Anti-Real ID Bill

without comments

Wow I find myself actually proud of Minnesota’s government for once…

http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/minnesotapassesantirealidb.htm

Minnesota has officially passed a law that states we won’t be adopting Real ID. It’s nice to see Minnesota stating up for states’ rights.

Written by Christopher Burg

May 21st, 2009 at 3:05 am

Posted in Politics

Tagged with , ,