The Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act is here!

[Liberty4Ever]

imported post

I don't FaceBook, but a friend who does established a KFFA page there. The last time I talked with him, it had well over 200 friends in a couple of days, with new people signing on literally as he watched. I'm mildly encouraged by this, even though I know FaceBook friends can be fair weather friends.

I hope these folks can be convinced to take a couple of minutes to call their representatives to support the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act or call the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission and leave a message in support of the HB87, the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act for the House Elections committee. It's very easy to do. Call the same number for both: 800-372-7181.

Merely wishing for good legislation won't help at all, but investing a couple of minutes can have a huge effect. I've been to Frankfort twice, and I've talked on the phone with key legislators, and I can see that more than anything right now, we need our legislators to know there is huge public support for the KFFA.

 

[Statesman]

imported post

Update on the movement to ban mandatory health insurance in states.

States seeking to ban mandatory health insurance
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DJBU4O0&show_article=1


See also: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/28/nullification-its-official/

---
"Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.
So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?
Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.
Nullification carries with it the force of state law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the US Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court. It is the people of a state asserting their constitutional rights by acting as a political society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand and slavish, unlimited submission on the other. It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.
With the exception of a Constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), a state’s decision to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still affirm that might does not make right."

 

[Liberty4Ever]

imported post

The Senate version of HB 87, the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act, was filed yesterday. It's SB 122. As promised, it looks identical to HB 87, so there will be no need to reconcile the two bills. It's time to call your senator and ask for co-sponsorship of SB 122.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/SB122.htm

It also wouldn't hurt to call Senator John Schickel at 502-564-8100 X617and thank him for sponsoring the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act in the Senate.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legislator/S011.htm

If your representative still hasn't co-sponsored HB 87, give them a call too!

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HB87.htm

You can reach any state senator or representative via the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission switchboard at 800-372-7181.

It's still a good idea to call the NRA's legislative hotline at 800-392-8683 and urge the NRA to endorse and promote the firearms freedom act, both nationally, and at the individual states.

We're going to win this one! I'm so looking forward to Kentucky being colored green on the national firearms freedom act website map to indicate we've passed our firearms freedom act. If our legislators hurry, we can be the third state to do so.

http://firearmsfreedomact.com

This is state sovereignty in terms that voters can understand, and the federal government can't miss the emphasis on our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Hopefully, We the People and our servant government understand the significance of the firearms freedom act.

 

[aadvark]

imported post

If Kentucky wants tothey CAN: 1. Allow Domestic Violence Batterers to Have/CArry/Use Firearms, notwithstanding any Federal Law to the contary, AND 2.Allow Convicted Felons to Have/Carry/Use Firearms notwithstanding Federal Law to the contary, AND 3. Excuse themselves from Mental Hospitals, FBI-CJIS-NICS, and Brady notwithstanding Federal Law to the contrary.

I fully support The Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act, as it: Upholds the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of The United States Constitution. It is about time someone said NO to Federal Interstate Commerce appling to everything!!!!!

***However, United States controls Immigration into, and Emigration out of, The United States under The United States Constitution. Also, I do not think that Kentucky can excuse itself from The Federal Law that disallows Dishonorably Discharged Military Persons from having Firearms, because; The United States Constituiton empowers Federal Military concerns solely to The United States Congress. States are expressively forbidden..., except for: 1. State Militias, AND 2. In times of Invasion or Rebellion, when the circumstanses or time will not allow for delay.***

Proof to the above Paragraph so titled '*' is found under The United States Constituiton Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4 as it pertains to Immigration and Emigration. Additionally, Article 1 Section 8 Paragraphs 10-15 allow Congress to regulate Military Affairs. However, this is forbidden to Kentucky, except as provided under Article 1 Section 9 Paragraph 1 and Article 1 Section 10 Paragraphs 1 and 3.

Therefore, it is my opinion that: 1. United States Federal Code 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(1-4) AND 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(8-9)are Unlawful, as it pertains to Intrastate/Interstate Commerce AND Constitutional Law, BUT 2. 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(5-7) are Lawful.

Kentucky MUST OBEY 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(5-7), but not anything else. All other Firearm/Weapon decisions, provided they stay in Kentucky..., and do not move in Interstate Commerce among SEVERAL of The States (not just merely a State Kentucky bourders)... are Kentucky decisions per The United States Constituion and The Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

[Liberty4Ever]

imported post

I'm starting to detect some reluctance, and even some resistance within the Kentucky state legislature to pass the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act.

I put up a Kentucky Firearms Freedom website. It may take a day before you can see it.

http://KYFirearmsFreedom.com

I'm getting ready to let the big dogs off the leash. They thought that Massachusetts senate seat was some shocking politics. Wait until they see a bunch of riled up Kentucky gun owners, all mad as a wet hen. I almost pity the legislator who stands in front of this torrent and tries to resist it. One by one, the political roadblocks will be swept aside, with or without NRA support.


PS - I learned that Friday is an awful day to call state legislators. I'll try again on Monday.

 

[Statesman]

imported post

Why was this thread made unsticky?

 

[Liberty4Ever]

imported post

Stan Lee returned my call this afternoon. Stan is the sponsor of HB 87, the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act.

To be honest, I'm initially skeptical of politicians and that was true of Stan Lee, too. I was glad he sponsored the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act and the 10th amendment state sovereignty bill as well, and I was glad to help support them, although my cynical side wondered if Stan Lee might be sponsoring the liberty legislation more for political reasons, but I am happy to say that absolutely does not seem to be the case. He gets it. I'm a Stan fan. He's mailing me a return envelope and even in these tough times, I'll make a small contribution. It may be something of a token measure of support (I have four other liberty candidates I'm also supporting, and all the time I spend on this stuff doesn't leave much time to work to pay the bills, much less make large political contributions), but Stan is now solidly on my "good guy" political list. He's strongly in favor of our right to keep and bear arms as it's described in the second amendment of our Bill of Rights, and he's not sitting around waiting for the NRA to tell him how to vote like some fair weather gun rights friends I could name.

Let's give Stan The Man some support in Frankfort!

Please call 800-372-7181, M-4, 9-5.

Tell them you want to leave a message for the House leadership - "Schedule HB 87, the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act, for a committee hearing and support it."

The next day, call back and tell them you want to leave a message for the Senate leadership - "Schedule SB 122, the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act, for a committee hearing and support it."

It's super easy to do this. I call while I'm in traffic, so it doesn't take any time from my life. If you didn't multitask, the call would eat up a whopping two minutes, or probably less.

If you're feeling really froggy, cut and paste the above instructions into an email to all of your Kentucky gun buddies.

If our elected representatives don't hear from us, they won't pass the KFFA, and that's guaranteed. Let's make sure they hear from us!

See you guys at the big Second Amendment March at 1:00 PM Saturday, March 27th, 2010 on the Capitol steps in Frankfort. If the KFFA hasn't passed by then, I'll be there promoting it and collecting signed petitions.

 

[Statesman]

imported post

I called both of my representatives in the house and senate, and left messages for the leadership as well, asking them to schedule a committee hearing and to support the bills.

Have you done the same? This means YOU.

 

[Liberty4Ever]

imported post

Utah passed the UFFA out of the House and Senate, and it's waiting for the governor's signature to become law. I'm glad Utah is getting with the program, even though I was hoping Kentucky would be the third Firearms Freedom state.

I'll have the KFFA booth at the Lexington gun show this weekend and the Louisville gun show next weekend. If you're at the gun show, come over and say hi!

 

[Statesman]

imported post

Liberty4Ever wrote:

Utah passed the UFFA out of the House and Senate, and it's waiting for the governor's signature to become law. I'm glad Utah is getting with the program, even though I was hoping Kentucky would be the third Firearms Freedom state.

I'll have the KFFA booth at the Lexington gun show this weekend and the Louisville gun show next weekend.  If you're at the gun show, come over and say hi!

This is getting embarassing!

 

[GarandFan]

imported post

I support these bills, generally, because they will or will not define an "emerging consensus" over these matters. One of those is that the federal government has an uncomfortably long reach (particularly by over-invoking the commerce clause). To put it another way, the consensus that is emerging is that some of the powers claimed by the federal government are unjust, and not consented to by the governed (the people).


But ... as a peeve on the matter of fact ...

These Tenth Amendment people, of ALL people, often discuss "state's rights." For example, they proclaim that the FFAs are not about firearms as much as they are about "state's rights." That they use that terminology belies fundamental misunderstanding.

Even that very amendment makes no mention of "state's rights."

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

People have rights, and in some cases powers. States, nor any other unit of government, do not have rights. Institutions of government have powers, and those powers are established and granted by the people. I think the idea goes like this: ...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...

This idea is fundamental to our entire system of government ... how our people interact with our government. Because of the fundamentalness and simplicity of this idea, it's shocking ... SHOCKING ... that "constitutionalists" and tenth-amendment supporters go about talking about "state's rights."

Makes them look like amateurs.

 

[langzaiguy]

imported post

&Gar Are you off your pedestal yet? Maybe we're not as patriotic or intellectual as you, but we get the general idea.

Seriously though, I understand where you're coming from. We've been given certain rights from our Creator, whereas a state is not "born" with certain rights. The People do consent to delegating certain powers to the state rather the fed, thus the 10th amendment.

While talking about states' rights may not be correct nomenclature, it's the fundamental ideas behind the principles of it all.

Perhaps people would be more apt to listen to your point of view if you didn't come off as such of a pretentious ass.

 

[GarandFan]

imported post

Read what you will, langzaiguy. That's your choice.

What I read is that you've awaken on the wrong side of bed this Valentine's day morning.

 

[Liberty4Ever]

imported post

GarandFan,

Point taken.

However, when you grade someone's homework, isn't it customary to correct it? You know, so we learn something? Or is this something that is left to the student, so you're going to mark it wrong and then not tell us what we should have said?

Exactly what concise verbiage should we be using given that "states' rights" is technically incorrect because states don't have rights?

I've said "states' rights" before, but I usually say that the Firearms Freedom Act is, at its heart, a state sovereignty bill. Does that meet with your approval?

 

[GarandFan]

imported post

Hi folks:

This isn't that big a deal and I am sorry some took it the wrong way. I guess that happens when one airs peeves.

I usually speak in terms of the "enumerated powers of congress", "state powers and sovereignty" and "rights of the people."

I just make it a habit not to say "state's rights", because we don't give our rights to the states ... we delegate powers to them.

I also make it a habit not to call magazines "clips", and not to call semi-auto rifles "assault rifles" ... maybe this issue of "state's rights" is just as trivial?

 

[johnfenter]

imported post

I would make the argument that States DO have "rights"... in their dealings as corporate entities with each other and with the Federal government ONLY. NOT in their dealings with citizens. Even cities/counties/parishes etc. can be said to have "rights" built in to their charters when it comes to dealing with their State. But at no level does government have rights when dealing with individual human beings. Only people have rights in that case, and government has only "enumerated powers".