Fighting Back

Colorado, South Dakota Firearms Freedom Act Introduced

from Tenth Amendment Center

Introduced in the State Senates of both Colorado and South Dakota last week is a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” If passed, the bill would make state law that “any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state and that remains within the borders of the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

This now makes Firearms Freedom Acts already passed in Montana and Tennessee, and currently introduced in these 21 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

According to Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and author of the original bill that was introduced in Montana, “It’s likely that FFAs will be introduced soon in West Virginia, New Mexico, Idaho, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and maybe elsewhere”

South Dakota’s Senate Bill 89 (SB89) was introduced by State Senator Rhoden, and has 22 Senate co-sponsors and 44 House co-sponsors.

Colorado’s Senate Bill 092 (SB10-092) was introduced by State Senator Schultheis and has 9 Senate co-sponsors and 7 House co-sponsors.

CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Tracking Page

UPDATE, 01-26-10

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ 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.

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:

“The 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 exist”

Here Madison and Webster assert what is implied in nullification laws — 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.

In similar proposals, some legislators around the country have begun adding penalties – ranging from misdemeanors to felony charges – for federal agents, too.  Other legislators have already introduced what’s known as the “State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act” which would require the state to interpose against the IRS and withhold tax funds from D.C.  Click here to read more about this proposal.

Even without such specific penalties listed, I see this as an important step in the right direction.

Hat Tip: National Expositor


Militant Libertarian

Site owner, philosopher, certified genius, and general pain in the establishment's ass.



I jump with glee at the intruduction of these Firearms Acts, not just challenging the federal government on firearms regulations(which in itself is always important), but challenging the federal government’s own power, and their interpritation of the 10th amendment. If 21 states really got behind these Acts, and all adopted some form of one under state law, and challenged the fed, maybe then they’d understand their REAL bounderies. That’s half the country telling them that their state’s are going to be under the will of their residents and not the federal government.

But the REAL challenge will be to see past the fed’s response to such a thing. Which will probably be the withdrawl of a whole lot of federal money for those states(which is so depressingly stupid, as it was the states who gave the money to the feds in the first place). But if the states could keep their backbones, and stand firm, it might eventually lead the way for…..seccession, maybe?
Very, very interesting stuff here.
Even those who are not firearms enthusiasts should see past the politic in the coming debates and side with the states’ rights. It’ll be the first time(at least since the 1850’s) states would have ever challenged the fed on a large enough level to have made a difference.
A victory here, and it could very well change the balance of power away from the fed, at the very least, in a symbolic way.

Militant Libertarian

Definitely, though I don’t hold much hope for this truly happening on a scale as wide as 21 of 50. Some states, however, are in a situation where the withdrawal of federal money and support would have little impact on them. Wyoming here, for instance, would lose (possibly) it’s military component, but the USA is so dependent on our resources (coal, gas, etc.) that a full withdrawal of federal $ is not possible, really. Montana, the Dakotas, and others are in a similar situation.

Other states, such as Texas and Oklahoma, have close to the same, but still have a fair dependence on federal dollars. Obviously, states like California and Delaware and the like have no independence at all.

David B

Lets go all the way and abolish the fed govt. What has the fed govt done except wage perpetial war, bail out banks, build prisons, and spend our grandchildrens money. Our cities’ infrastructures are 100 years old, and our bridges are falling in the rivers while we build new ones in Iraq. We dial 911 for a ambulance and risk losing our our life savings and everything we worked for, but we did fund Univeral healthcare as a right in Iraq. The Individual states would be much better off without a federal government — taking over their own education, healthcare, law enforcement, retirement, social security, roads, and infrastructure.

remember that We were on top in education and health until the 70s when the feds started creating the Dept of this and the Dept of That.

For the amount of money that was spent in Iraq and bank bailouts, we could of had Universal healthcare, New Infrastructure, And light rails in every city.

We have moved from the land of the Free and the home of the Brave to a nation of cowards residing in a corporate controlled police state. We are afraid of vouchers and having to actually choose our childrens schools – we want the govt to do it. We are afraid of individual retirement accounts – we want the govt to pool everything (usualy taking from poorer gen Xers to give to richer babyboomers). Most of all, we are totally terrified of the concept of individuals being able to self medicate and purchase their own medicines without a gatekeeper (wasn’t for this a $200 prescription would be a $30 off the shelf medicine) and we are totally terrified of patients actually choosing their medical treatments (doctors can only provide from a narrow list of Govt (pharma controlled FDA) approved treatments — or we have to leave the country for newer better choices. If there was a FDA during Lewis Pasture’s Time, the govt would just now be approving the procedure of washing ones hands before performing surgery. Almost forgot, Boy – are we terrified of the thought of preparing and providing for our self defense and the pistol grip and banana shaped magazine on our neighbors black rifle gives us nightmares. — and how did we come so far as to accept the fact that a food fight between boy friend and girl friend should ban a person from owning guns.

Boy are we cowards !


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.