Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast's

Looks like Pklahoma is the state to live for FREE Americans

An update from Oklahoma :

Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values…! HB 1330

Guess what………. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. Hope we didn’t send any of them to your state This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what………. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. SB 1102

Guess what…….. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas, Montana and Utah as the only states to do so. More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina’s, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I’m sure that was a set back for the criminals (and Obamaites). Liberals didn’t like it — But ……..

Guess what……….. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver’s license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma , you must read and write English. Really simple.

By the way, Obama does not like any of this.

Guess what….who cares… Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

Federal government, BATFE, congress, president, and even the Supreme Court, you laws and rulings, violate the 9th and 10th amendment of the constitution. So thus unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. So says Alaska. Great news for gun rights and second amendment supporters.

Our legislators have come up with the statutory equivalent of my favorite lines from “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”

“Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!”

In approving Rep. Mike Kelly’s HB 186, the Legislature is officially on record declaring that we don’t need no stinkin’ badges from the Federales to make and sell guns or ammo in Alaska.

Fifty of our 60 lawmakers agree that the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress and the president have been wrong for a long time about what the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution mean regarding the powers of the federal government.

With Gov. Sean Parnell’s signature, it will soon be official state policy that in-state gun makers selling guns in Alaska are not subject to federal laws, federal regulations or federal registration, despite what the federal government says.

The message to the future firearms industry in Alaska is to not worry about federal prosecution or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The bill is almost the same as a measure approved in Montana and a half-dozen other states. One difference is that Alaska lawmakers did not include the comment by Idaho lawmakers that they “are declaring their intention of Idaho becoming the freest state in the Union.”

Perhaps the biggest difference, however, is that lawmakers in those other states, including Montana, Idaho, Arizona and Utah, placed limits on the size of weapons that are free from federal regulation.

In the other states, people still have to follow federal laws if the guns “cannot be carried and used by one person.”

Under the Alaska measure, however, the guns can be bigger than something one person can carry.

In the other states, the laws say that firearms with a bore diameter of more than 1.5 inches that use smokeless powder as a propellant and those that fire two or more projectiles with one pull of the trigger are not free of federal laws. Again, the Alaska measure has no comparable limits.

It is possible that after the Alaska firearms plan becomes law, the BATF will send a letter to federal firearms licensees similar to that which was sent last year to gun dealers in other states. Those letters said that federal law requires a federal license to manufacture firearms or ammo for sale, even if the products remain in state.

But if the feds come knocking on your door for violations of those firearms laws, don’t worry. The Alaska attorney general will defend you with both guns blazing.

No wait, I take that back.

Hold the celebratory gunfire.

The original version of Kelly’s bill said that the Alaska attorney general will ride to the defense of Alaska firearms makers with a posse of lawyers.

But the new state policy now says that the attorney general’s office “may” come to your defense. And you may find $1 million between the cushions on your couch tonight or you may wake up tomorrow as a member of Mensa.

If lawmakers really believe they are right to encourage people to ignore a federal law, they should not have been so wishy-washy with the pledge for free government legal aid.

Experts talk about what happens to Chicago’s 28-year-old gun ban

Indiana Senate has set the standard for Second Amendment rights we all should live by and be a federal law at that

In a world where the average citizen’s Second Amendment rights are constantly being undermined, we need all the help we can get. For the time being, we’re safe — at least in Indiana.

Well, as long as you leave your firearm in your car at work or the government declares a state of emergency that leaves law enforcement and military resources stretched thin.

On Feb. 22, the Indiana Senate voted 41-9 to pass House Bill 1065, also known as the Indiana Emergency Powers Bill. The bill prevents law enforcement and military personnel from confiscating legally owned firearms and ammunition from law-abiding citizens in a declared state of emergency, such as during a natural disaster or attack.

Another provision in the bill allows employees the right to keep firearms stored and locked in their vehicles while they are at their place of employment, guaranteeing that they won’t get fired as a result.

Let me say that I cannot adequately convey how important this is to the pro-firearms movement. It takes into consideration the safety of the average citizen in the event of a national emergency, where sometimes the only protection one has is one’s self.

A law like this certainly would have been useful in post-Katrina New Orleans, where police confiscated firearms — at gunpoint — and left city dwellers defenseless from looters, animals and politicians.

I can see the reasoning behind the decision to confiscate handguns, shotguns and rifles when trying to forcibly evacuate people from their own homes in the wake of the worst tragedy that has befallen a city. It’s like removing a goalie from a soccer game, which is the one thing that keeps you from getting the ball where it needs to go. Law enforcement is likely stretched thin enough that dealing with firearm-toting citizens who may potentially be criminals is one thing it doesn’t need on its plate when trying to force people from their homes.

But what about those who decided to stay? When law enforcement is stretched thin, so is protection. The police aren’t going to be everywhere at once in the event of a national emergency. Police aren’t even obligated to protect us in the first place.

Seriously. The Supreme Court decided in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez in 2005 that police have no constitutionally mandated duty to protect and serve. This basically leaves us at the mercy of local law enforcement’s code of ethics and guidelines.

With that decision, this law gains even more ground. A significant natural disaster that would put Indiana in a declared state of emergency is not likely anytime in the near future. It is still nice, however, to have some reassurance that when things go to hell in a hand basket, we’ll still have the ability to defend ourselves.

The Katrina example is a bit dated. Since then, former Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law a National Rifle Association-backed Emergency Powers Protection Act, similar to the bill passed in Indiana. Also, to its credit, the New Orleans Police Department is returning confiscated firearms to their rightful owners through a form that can be submitted to the police department in person.

As for the other provision of the new Indiana bill, employers will no longer be allowed to punish employees for keeping legally owned firearms in their vehicles. It reinforces that Second Amendment rights don’t fall through when driving to and from work.

I’ll argue the other side before giving some examples. Opponents of keeping firearms locked in cars on company property posit that it may lead to another massacre such as the factory shooting in January at ABB Power in Missouri, which left three dead and five others wounded. The gunman arrived at the facility with several firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

That’s bad. Take it into consideration, however, that no trifling corporate policy on storing guns in one’s vehicle is going to stop a guy from shooting up his workplace if he really sets his mind to it. The only people that this policy affects are those who use their firearms for self-defense or who just haven’t gotten around to removing them from their vehicle after a hunting excursion or a trip to the range.

I’ll admit that if my place of employment knew what heat I was packing in my car at any given time before this law passed, I’d be out on the street playing bongos for cash. I keep a loaded pistol-grip shotgun in my car wherever I go (save for school, naturally). I’m not fooling around.

Neither should you. Exercise your right while you still have it because there are people who would take it away from you as soon as they get the chance.

Another one bits the dust feds and ATFE, South Dakota Legislature Passes Firearms Freedom Bill! Good News for all

Well good news to second amendment, guns, ammo, and hunting fans. Looks like South Dakota may be joining the ranks of states that pass a firearm Freedom Bill.
A bill that declares “exempt from federal regulation any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Dakota” passed in the South Dakota House of Representatives today.

SB 89 was approved by a 49-19 vote. The bill had already passed the state Senate on Feb. 18 with a 29-4 vote.

The bill states it would “exempt from federal regulation any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Dakota.” The spirit of the bill hearkens to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which says

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.

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, but the firearms and ammunition covered by this bill would not be involved in interstate commerce; it specifies guns and ammo that are manufactured and kept within the state of South Dakota.

A number of states across the country have been working on “Firearms Freedom Acts” which seek to rein in our out-of-control federal government. South Dakota is joining this effort to restore federalism and strengthen our American freedoms.

Utah joins the growing list of state telling feds hands off our guns and ammo

On Friday, Utah Governor Gary Herbert finally signed into law SB11, the Utah State-Made Firearms Protection Act. The bill passed both the House and the Senate, then sat on Herbert’s desk for 10 days while the governor debated whether he would sign or veto the bill. Had the governor neither signed nor vetoed the bill by Saturday, it would have automatically gone into effect as law. Herbert said the decision to sign came after careful review of the potential fallout from the controversial legislation.

“There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government. Sending the message that we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government is a good thing,” the governor said. “But in these challenging economic times, when Utah families continue to struggle and our Legislature must account for every dollar it spends, we must also be thoughtful about the cost of that message.”

SB11 creates statute that allows guns and ammunition manufactured and sold in Utah to be regulated by the state of Utah, not by the federal government. At its heart, SB11 is a states’ rights bill, not a weapons bill. It lashes out at the federal government and attempts to regain some of the control and power the federal government has usurped from the states through overreaching use of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Senator Margaret Dayton, the bill’s sponsor, said the bill is all about control. But asserting control will likely come with a constitutional challenge. The bill was modeled after Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, which passed last year, and has since gone into litigation. Litigation was brought against the federal government by a private group who asserts that current interpretation of constitutional law, as it regards to the Interstate Commerce Clause, is incorrect. The federal government has filed a motion to dismiss the matter, which is awaiting a hearing. Tennessee is the only other state that has adopted a similar law.

Governor Herbert has consulted with the state Attorney General and other legal advisers, who assured him that the state can take a stand on this issue of controlling intrastate commerce without incurring onerous legal expenses.

“The attorney general has assured me that, should a legal challenge be filed against the state, his office can take a variety of actions to ensure the defense of this legislation will have a minimal cost to the people of Utah,” said Herbert. “I am satisfied that Utah can stand confidently with other states that are taking a stand against the federal government’s overreach in this area.”

Washington State supreme court ruled on the side of reason visa vie cun rights and the second amendment

Thursday the Washington State Supreme court rulled that the Second Amendment does actually incorporate to the states. Basically the founds of our great nation intended that the second amendment WAS intended for the states not only the federal government. So the second amendment was meant to apply to the to the people and the states. This ruling is thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation. Good job guys.

an Idaho lawmaker wants Washington D.C. to keep its mitts – and its laws – off guns and ammunition manufactured in his state

In yet another shot from Idaho over the federal government’s bow, an Idaho lawmaker wants Washington D.C. to keep its mitts – and its laws – off guns and ammunition manufactured in his state.

Rep. Dick Harwood, from St. Maries, introduced the “Idaho Firearms Freedom Act” Thursday in the House State Affairs Committee.
Montana passed a similar bill last year, saying guns made and kept within its borders are exempt from national gun laws. Gun advocates sued in federal court to validate the law, while U.S. attorneys want the case to be dismissed.

Meanwhile, Tennessee passed the same law and legislators in a couple dozen other states are considering following suit.
Harwood, who comes from rural northern Idaho where suspicions of federal agents runs high among some, called this a “sovereignty issue.”

Some Kentucky state representatives are working on adding Kentucky to the growing list of states that tell the ATFE and the feds to kiss off in 2010

Three Kentucky lawmakers have pre-filed legislation to be considered in the 2010 regular session that would strengthen the gun rights of Kentucky citizens.

Kentucky State Rep. Stan Lee (R-Lexington) pre-filed a bill in the House on Nov. 6 that would exempt firearms and ammunition made and used in Kentucky from federal law.

BR348, (HB87 when the session begins) named the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act, would, “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.”

The bill builds upon the foundation of state’s rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The first section of BR348 opens:

The General Assembly declares that the authority for Sections 1 to 6 of this Act is the following:
(1) The tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Kentucky certain powers as they were understood at the time that Kentucky was admitted to statehood on June 1, 1792. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the Commonwealth and people of Kentucky and the United States as of the time that the Kentucky was admitted as a state of the United States on June 1, 1792;
(2) The ninth amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Kentucky certain rights as they were understood at the time Kentucky was admitted as a state of the United States on June 1, 1792.

The legislation makes up part of a national movement known as the Firearms Freedom Act. Montana was the first state to propose this type of legislation, declaring that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its Constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The Montana legislature passed its bill Oct. 1, 2009.

The Tennessee legislature passed a similar bill in July of 2009. The Tennessee Senate passed the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act by a 22-7 vote. The House approved the bill 87-1. The legislation became law without Gov. Phil Bredesen’s signature.

Lawmakers in Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Minnesota and Florida have introduced similar legislation.

Two other Kentucky representatives have proposed a bill reaffirming gun rights.

Last August, Rep. Bill Farmer (R-Lexington) and Rep. David Floyd (R-Bardstown) pre-filed a Concurrent Resolution that affirms Kentucky citizens’ gun rights under the Second Amendment.

BR124 urges support for the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and urges Congress not to enact any law that would infringe on the right to bear arms under the Constitution of Kentucky.

Idaho State lawmakers to introduce bill to ATF and the federal government to go stick it

Idaho has been a strong supporter of the right to bear arms — even attracting firearms manufacturers from other states to spur its economy.

But is it willing to take on the federal government to defend that right?

Rep. R.J. “Dick” Harwood, R-St. Maries, will ask that question when he introduces a bill to the Idaho Legislature in January that could make it cheaper and easier to buy a firearm that’s made and sold in Idaho.

The bill, which is circulating among a small group of Republican lawmakers, will mirror the Montana Firearms Freedom Act — the now famous bill that pit Montana against the federal government in a pending legal battle.

Harwood said the bill is a shot across the bow of the federal government.

“This is a way that we can tell the federal government that they can’t take away states’ rights,”he said. “I know the feds are going to have a problem with it — they already say we would be superceding their authority.”

He said the bill would mirror one that was passed in Montana in 2009.

Montana was the first state to pass a bill that slapped the federal government’s hands off of in-state firearms sales.

Montana House Bill 426 — also dubbed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act — says all firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold within Montana is exempt from federal regulation.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association filed a complaint against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in federal court in October to validate the bill’s passage.

The case is pending in court and officials say they don’t know how long — or how costly — the case may be.

But there is more behind the act than its title conveys. And it has more to do with dollars and cents than states’ rights.

Manufacturers and state lawmakers say Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act is also a valuable tool to attract gun makers from states that are imposing more rigid gun laws.

Something that hasn’t been lost on Idaho lawmakers.

“This is an opportunity to create jobs and help spur the economy by bringing manufactures to Idaho,” said Representative Marc Gibbs, a Republican legislator from Grace. “I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but right now our state’s economy is my biggest concern.”

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter announced an initiative earlier this year that markets Idaho to firearms manufacturers in other states that are looking to move or expand.

The initiative, known as Project 60, has already seen some success when Advanced Precision, which makes shotguns for Legacy Sports, opened manufacturing facility in Meridian.

However, Gibbs said Idaho should wait to see what the outcome will be of the case between Montana and the federal government.

Even firearms manufacturers in Idaho — those who would benefit the most from the bill — say it’s not a fight they want to pick right now.

“As a freedom loving American, I think the bill is a great idea,” said Jay Quilligan, who manufactures firearm accessories in south-central Idaho. “But as a business owner, it doesn’t really change anything.”

Quilligan said he would still be required to pay all federal taxes and fees because he is licensed by the federal government — something he needs to continue doing business with military and law enforcement.

“Most manufacturers in Idaho and other states are not going to take that risk of losing their business,” said Matt Dogali, Idaho liaison with the National Rifle Association. “The bill sounds good, but in practice these guys would be spending a ton of capital just to make a statement.”

And some Idaho lawmakers aren’t willing to put the state’s firearms and ammunition manufacturers in the federal government’s crosshairs.

Idaho is home to ATK CCISpears, one of the largest manufacturers of ammunition for law enforcement and civilian use. The state also fosters small businesses such as Tactical Solutions, Primary Weapons Systems, CheyTac and several others that build high-grade firearms and accessories for military and civilians.

Representative Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said the cost and risk would be placed primarily on the manufacturers.

“The state can pass the Firearms Freedom Act, but ultimately it will have to be tested in court,”he said. “That means one of (the manufacturers) would have to be the guinea pig.”

Harwood said he still plans to submit the bill in January, and lawmakers appear poised to support it.

However, whether it will receive support from those who would have to risk their businesses to test the validity of the bill remains to be seen.