search
top

9th Circuit Says No on Firearms Freedom Act

The suit to defend the Montana Firearms Freedom Act has gone down to defeat in the 9th Circuit. Given the precedent in Gonzales v. Raich, this idea was never really going to fly. It’ll be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to take the case, but I don’t give that much of a chance. There were several other states that passed laws like this as well. Post Sandy Hook, there was also a movement to do outright nullification, with our state’s introduced legislation being HR357. I’ve also become aware of local efforts at the county level to do the same.

I think it’s important for people to be aware of what these laws do. The Freedom Acts, like Montana’s, really don’t have much more than symbolic value. They aren’t going to stop, and in fact can’t stop the federal government from the execution of federal law and regulations. You won’t be able to manufacture a machine gun, or any gun, in Montana and them wave a state law in their face and suggest they can’t arrest you and prosecute you. You’ll quickly find that is not the case.

The nullification laws, at the state level, could in theory do some good under dire circumstances. This is because states are actual sovereigns, and can pass real laws and control real monies. If the federal government were to pass draconian new gun control, it would be tremendously beneficial for the states to have laws that prevent state authorities from enforcing the federal law. If a state wanted to take nullification farther and actively interfere with federal enforcement, that could also be useful (though dangerous — civil wars can start that way.) I’m far less convinced that local action on this kind of nullification is anything more than empty symbolism, because county and local government typically don’t have the lawmaking power necessary to do anything substantive.

These are just things to consider when judging whether to get behind laws like this with serious resources. I tend to think nullification is more useful than Firearms Freedom Acts, but nullification is something to save for when we actually lose, or loss appears likely. I would suggest that resources are best applied to not losing in the first place.

7 Responses to “9th Circuit Says No on Firearms Freedom Act”

  1. wizardpc says:

    You won’t be able to manufacture a machine gun, or any gun, in Montana and the[n] wave a state law in their face and suggest they can’t arrest you and prosecute you. You’ll quickly find that is not the case.

    Tennessee has a similar law. I’m certain our local “I’m smarter than every LEO and DA in the country” guy who calls himself a gun rights advocate is already spinning himself up to do exactly this.

  2. Andy B. says:

    I don’t think there is a single, actual, elected legislator pitching variations of this “nullification” crap who doesn’t know that what he’s doing is a totally empty gesture that will eventually add up to zippo.

    While these things may make them as popular as all hell with the boys back home, they disgust me, because on one hand they preach to us daily about the constitution, at the same time they peddle false hopes based in constitutional doctrines they know have to be bogus. (Is there a state legislature anywhere that doesn’t have some sort of research department that legislation gets passed through for checks of details of language, conflicts, etc., before it is submitted?) Yet these charlatans build hope — and false doctrines — among their marginally (or falsely) educated and unsophisticated acolytes, who begin thinking they are the sophisticates, while the judges who correctly analyze the bad legislation, and arrive at unwanted decisions, are the “activists” who are denying them their rights.

    Talk about creating a civil war/revolutionary scenario. One might think that was the purpose of the effort. Of course when bullets fly, the charlatans will be nowhere to be found, other than campaigning for their post-revolutionary seats.

  3. Ed Warden says:

    Big SURPRISE RIGHT! These judges are all apart of the federal govt & will NEVER STAND UP FOR OUR CONSTITUTION & BILL OF RIGHTS. They are all in my opinion, TRAITORS TO OUR CONSTITUTION THAT THEY ALSO TOOK AN OATH TO PROTECT & DEFEND. CORRUPTION WITHIN THE FEDERAL, STATE & LOCAL GOVT WILL NEVER STOP UNTIL THE PEOPLE DECIDE THEY HAVE HAD ENOUGH.

  4. aerodawg says:

    Any effort at opposing federal law needs to be done in the same thread that marijauna legalization efforts are taking. You can’t interfere with the feds, but at the same time they can’t force the states to help enforce that law. You remove all your state restrictions and you prohibit state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal law in those areas.

    Whether the feds like it or not, they don’t have the resources to police the entire country without the help of state and local law enforcement. You remove that tool and you neuter them…

    • Exactly. Idaho’s legislature considered a bill to prohibit state and local law enforcement from assisting in enforcing any new federal gun control laws, but this is Idaho, and many legislators are just terrified of being called conservatives.

      • Andy B. says:

        Idaho’s bill sounds quite different from PA’s HB357, which specifies that federal authorities attempting to enforce certain gun laws will be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned, which quite plausibly could be considered to be “advocating the violent overthrow.”

        One might think the purpose of HB357 was not to accomplish anything, but for its loon sponsor to demonstrate his surplus of substanceless and brain-free bravado.

  5. Kristophr says:

    All of these firearm freedom bills are nothing but symbolism.

    Want to do something real? Declare everyone in the state to be part of the state militia, and issue them an M-4 lower as part of their load-out.

    States can issue cops and state militia all the bang toys they want or need … so make use of this.

top