• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act is here!

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

UPDATE 1/21/2010: The Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act (KFFA), is a bill about nullifying a federal law that a state legislature declares as being unconstitutional. This is a controversial subject, and many people disagree about its effectiveness. Fear not, nullification is already being successfully used in other areas.

Please see http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/nullification-of-congress.html for further details.

Quote: "[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]When a state nullifies a federal law, it does so with the solemn conviction that the law in question is unconstitutional. The state's lawmakers, generally invoking their sovereign powers under the Tenth Amendment, are proclaiming that the offensive law is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state. In other words, they declare that the federal law is not "legal" and cannot be enforced against their citizens.
[/font]
[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]
Such nullification has a long history in the American tradition. Of late it has been used by quite a few states in effectively blocking the federal Real ID Act of 2005 and resisting federal marijuana laws. With regard to healthcare legislation expected to be forced on us against our will by Washington, a number of states are already putting into motion the wheels of nullification.
[/font]
[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]"[/font]

Original post follows.

[line]
IMPORTANT

Support your right to Open Carry, always.

Rep. Stan Lee has introduced what will be HB87, currently BR348, a bill pre-filed for the 2010 session in the House. PLEASE contact YOUR representative here, and urge them to co-sponsor, and support this upcoming bill. Your phone call or office visit does matter! Please forward this info to everyone you know that cares about firearms freedom in Kentucky, and open carry.

Locate your House representative here, and contact them immediately: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/house/hsemembers.htm

Also, please call Rep Stan Lee and thank him for pre-filing this bill, and give him your support by telling him you will contact your representative to co-sponsor and/or support his bill.

Rep Stan Lee's page: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legislator/H045.htm

Summary:

BR 348 - Representative Stan Lee (11/06/09) AN ACT relating to firearms, including ammunition and accessories for firearms.
Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law; provide that the exemption does not include machine guns, silencers, exploding ammunition, or firearms with a bore over one and one-half inches name the new sections the "Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act."
See full bill here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HB87/bill.doc

From:

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

"Firearms and Weapons": http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/3820.htm

Also see: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/firearms-freedom-act/ to track nationwide adoption, and to post comments.

Also, Rep Stan Lee has pre-filed a bill for state sovereignty. Please urge co-sponsoring and full support when you contact your representative for the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act above. Both bills are crucial for the future of your freedom.

Summary: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HC10.htm

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION claiming sovereignty over powers not granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution; serving notice to the federal government to cease mandates beyond its authority; and stating Kentucky's position that federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of loss of federal funding should be prohibited or repealed.
Declare state sovereignty over powers not given to the federal government by the U. S. Constitution; demand the federal government to cease mandates beyond constitutionally delegated powers; prohibit federal legislation requiring state passage of laws under threat of penalties or sanctions; direct the Clerk to distribute copies of the Resolution.

Full bill here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HC10/bill.doc :

Bill Farmer's version:

BR 124 - Representative David Floyd, Representative Bill Farmer (08/04/09) A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging support for the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and urging Congress not to enact any law that would infringe on the right to bear arms under the Constitution of Kentucky.
Urge support for the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution; urge Congress not to enact any law that infringes on the right to bear arms under the Constitution of Kentucky.
(Prefiled by the sponsor(s).)
To: Interim Joint Committee on State Government
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HC13.htm

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HC13/bill.doc

[line]
UPDATE 1/20/2010 (Liberty4Ever):


PLEASE SPEND FIVE MINUTES CALLING TO SUPPORT THE KENTUCKY FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT!

The Gun Owners of America fully supports the firearms freedom act. Unfortunately, the NRA sees the conflict with the federal government and rather than appreciating the states rights issue, they see it as something that might be overturned in federal court. It's wrong, but federal courts have a habit of siding with the federal government in these issues. The NRA likes to pick battles that win in court, but this is a battle that we win even if we lose in court.

I've been in contact with some of our usual allies in the Kentucky State Legislature and they seem to care more about what the NRA says and less about what their constituents say.

1) PLEASE CALL 800-372-7181 AND LEAVE A MESSAGE FOR YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE ASKING FOR COSPONSORSHIP OF HB 87. THE OPERATOR WILL ASK WHERE YOU LIVE TO DETERMINE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE.

2) PLEASE CALL 800-372-7181 AND LEAVE A MESSAGE FOR REPRESENTATIVES OWENS, FISCHER, AND WESTON TELLING THEM TO PUSH HB 87 OUT OF COMMITTEE FOR A FLOOR VOTE.

3) PLEASE CALL THE NRA-ILA AT 800-392-8683 AND ASK THEM TO SUPPORT THE FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT.

These calls will take a total of about five minutes. Isn't it worth five lousy minutes to advocate for firearms freedom and have your representatives actually represent you for a change? You'll feel better afterward.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

I do not understand why efforts are made for bills like this - a state cannot declare certain products exempt from federal law - they got no say in the matter.
 

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
imported post

I don't understand how the 10th amendment doesn't apply? I understand that the federal government can regulate interstate trade, but if something is produced & sold in the same state, how is it under federal jurisdiction?
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

Well, this is just my opinion, as well as many others, correct or not.

I guess we will see what the courts have to say about it, when an emerging consensus of states declare they alone have the right to regulate intrastate commerce, explicitly defining such terms. I read somewhere that SCOTUS either cannot, or probably will not, ignore such an emerging consensus among the states, and the people, perhaps overturning some portion(s) of previous rulings on the Interstate Commerce clause.

I believe that is where this effort is leading us. What do you suggest we do otherwise?
 

Unfettered Might

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
152
Location
, Kentucky, USA
imported post

Ok Mike, instead of spouting your personal opinions on the issue, would you care to reference something tangible to backup your statements.

As far as states determining products that are exempt from federal law....how many states have medicinal use of marijuana? Hasn't the federal government backed off of prosecuting cases involving possession for that purpose, do you know why?

Because the power is inherent in the people to decide for themselves, given enough people that agree, the state is empowered to ignore federal law if it so chooses. These check gates were put into place for a reason.

I agree to the will of the people, not the will of politicians. If you don't agree with the basic principles that our country is founded on, well.....

So please be a bit more eloquent in your arguments.
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

langzaiguy wrote:
I don't understand how the 10th amendment doesn't apply? I understand that the federal government can regulate interstate trade, but if something is produced & sold in the same state, how is it under federal jurisdiction?
My understanding is that it applies, but some statist SCOTUS punks have essentially redefined interstate commerce to mean anything that "might affect" commerce in another state. I may have that wrong, but I believe they've redefined the Interstate Commerce Clause more broadly than originally intended. This must change, and it will.

Mike can probably elaborate better than I can, since I'm not an attorney.
 

Prep

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
7
Location
, ,
imported post

This bill is total utter BS. What is the point of avoiding the Feds if you can't have MG, or suppressors. The only thing this bill disagrees with the Feds on is the DD bore diameter rule, and that will probably be fixed before it leaves committee. This bill adds nothing that benefits the average shooter. We need to get 922-o of the 86 ban repealed first, then work on the rest of the NFA.


Prep
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

Unfettered Might wrote:
Ok Mike, instead of spouting your personal opinions on the issue, would you care to reference something tangible to backup your statements.

As far as states determining products that are exempt from federal law....how many states have medicinal use of marijuana? Hasn't the federal government backed off of prosecuting cases involving possession for that purpose, do you know why?

Because the power is inherent in the people to decide for themselves, given enough people that agree, the state is empowered to ignore federal law if it so chooses. These check gates were put into place for a reason.

I agree to the will of the people, not the will of politicians. If you don't agree with the basic principles that our country is founded on, well.....

So please be a bit more eloquent in your arguments.
Excellent point! This appears to be a game of will to me. If the current administration in Washington decides it wants to violate the will of a State, or many states, it will have to deal with the consequences of those actions.

The states are not powerless subordinates that exist to grab their ankles at the whim of Washington D.C. No, they're going to jockey for their own power. The founders knew about this human trait to acquire or maintain power too well, and states will resist to keep it.

I agree, power rests with the people and the states, period. :dude:
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

Prep wrote:
This bill is total utter BS. What is the point of avoiding the Feds if you can't have MG, or suppressors. The only thing this bill disagrees with the Feds on is the DD bore diameter rule, and that will probably be fixed before it leaves committee. This bill adds nothing that benefits the average shooter. We need to get 922-o of the 86 ban repealed first, then work on the rest of the NFA.


Prep
My two cents. Consider this a foot in the door bill. Remember, bills have to pass before we can amend them to make them stronger. Rep Stan Lee has to contend with the anti's in Frankfort as well. This bill benefits the average gun owner by declaring states rights, and forming a consensus among them. This is just the first step in a long legislative and court battle.
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

Prep wrote:
The reason the Feds can stick their noses where ever they please is due to the ruling in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Prep
Yep, that's the one. If the case of a wheat farmer can overturn 150 years of court precedent, then a consensus among the states can set things straight, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

langzaiguy wrote:
I don't understand how the 10th amendment doesn't apply? I understand that the federal government can regulate interstate trade, but if something is produced & sold in the same state, how is it under federal jurisdiction?
Beause itis. Wickard v. Filburn; Gonzales v. Raich.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Statesman wrote:
Prep wrote:
The reason the Feds can stick their noses where ever they please is due to the ruling in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Prep
Yep, that's the one. If the case of a wheat farmer can overturn 150 years of court precedent, then a consensus among the states can set things straight, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.

I just took a glance at the wiki article. Not only was that decision an over-reach on the interstate effects angle, it was an over-reach on the commerce angle.

Filburn wasn't commercing at all. The wheatwas for his ownuse. How can the government claim with a straight face that it can use thecommerce power to regulate something that is not even being "commerced?" Essentially, it destroys your right to produce something for yourself, forcing you into the market to obtain it, or removes your ability to even own it at all if you cannot afford to buy it.

What's next? If I pump my own water, do I have to limit my pumpingbecause I'm not buying bottled water?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Statesman wrote:
Prep wrote:
The reason the Feds can stick their noses where ever they please is due to the ruling in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Prep
Yep, that's the one. If the case of a wheat farmer can overturn 150 years of court precedent, then a consensus among the states can set things straight, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.

I just took a glance at the wiki article. Not only was that decision an over-reach on the interstate effects angle, it was an over-reach on the commerce angle.

Filburn wasn't commercing at all. The wheatwas for his ownuse. How can the government claim with a straight face that it can use thecommerce power to regulate something that is not even being "commerced?" Essentially, it destroys your right to produce something for yourself, forcing you into the market to obtain it, or removes your ability to even own it at all if you cannot afford to buy it.

What's next? If I pump my own water, do I have to limit my pumpingbecause I'm not buying bottled water?
No but you will be subject to a host of federal and local restrictions even if you do not attempt to sell it - unless you claim a cottage industry exclusion. Do you own a cottage? :p

Yata hey
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Statesman wrote:
Prep wrote:
The reason the Feds can stick their noses where ever they please is due to the ruling in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Prep
Yep, that's the one. If the case of a wheat farmer can overturn 150 years of court precedent, then a consensus among the states can set things straight, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.

I just took a glance at the wiki article. Not only was that decision an over-reach on the interstate effects angle, it was an over-reach on the commerce angle.

Filburn wasn't commercing at all. The wheatwas for his ownuse. How can the government claim with a straight face that it can use thecommerce power to regulate something that is not even being "commerced?" Essentially, it destroys your right to produce something for yourself, forcing you into the market to obtain it, or removes your ability to even own it at all if you cannot afford to buy it.

What's next? If I pump my own water, do I have to limit my pumpingbecause I'm not buying bottled water?
No but you will be subject to a host of federal and local restrictions even if you do not attempt to sell it - unless you claim a cottage industry exclusion. Do you own a cottage? :p
No, but since the government can get away with twisting the constitution all to hell, I should be able to get away with saying that my possession of cottage cheese is an exception for growing too much wheat.

Come on by sometime and I'll pump you some water. While we still can. :p
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
No but you will be subject to a host of federal and local restrictions even if you do not attempt to sell it - unless you claim a cottage industry exclusion. Do you own a cottage? :p
No, but since the government can get away with twisting the constitution all to hell, I should be able to get away with saying that my possession of cottage cheese is an exception for growing too much wheat.

Come on by sometime and I'll pump you some water. While we still can. :p
Separating the curds from the chaff again I see. :)

Yata hey
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
No but you will be subject to a host of federal and local restrictions even if you do not attempt to sell it - unless you claim a cottage industry exclusion. Do you own a cottage? :p
No, but since the government can get away with twisting the constitution all to hell, I should be able to get away with saying that my possession of cottage cheese is an exception for growing too much wheat.

Come on by sometime and I'll pump you some water. While we still can. :p
Separating the curds from the chaff again I see. :)
Quit trying to introduce separatistKurds into my discussion. Just because they want their own country doesn't mean they belong in the conversation.Twisting my words is beginning to chafe me.

:):p
 
Top