Archive for category: Guns and Ammo Books
Found this on Walter E Williams site.
What the Framers said about our Second Amendment
Rights to Keep and Bear Arms
- “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
- “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
- “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
- If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
- “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
- “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
- “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
–John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
- “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
- “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
–Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
- “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
–Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
- “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
- “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
- “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
- “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
- ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
- ” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
– Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
- “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
– Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
- “The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
- “O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone …”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
- “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
– Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
- “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
– Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
- “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
- ” … most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
– James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
- “The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition 
- “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. ”
On this the Eighth anniversary off the attacks on the world trade centers and pentagon (9/11) just some thoughts
No matter how you feel about the government, current and past president’s, or the war in total, there are a few things you MUST do. Always respect and show reference for the USA troops who are overseas in the war zone. We have an ALL volunteer military. Those men and women are doing what they are ordered to do. (Trust me my brother is in the Army. For I know where I speak.)
We should also remember those who lost their lives in New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania. Including the pilots, crew, and all of those poor people in the plains. This is a day of remembrance. Please keep all those mentioned above and everyone who has lost their lives fighting on OUR behalf in the middle east, in your thoughts and prayers on this day.
Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists
Amendments to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which has already been passed by the House, would empower the Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists in light of recent federal reports that classify millions of Americans as “extremists”.
Former impeached Florida judge and now Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings has introduced amendments to H.R. 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which would give Holder dictator powers to demonize legitimate protest groups as being affiliated with violent race hate organizations.
The bill is ostensibly aimed at preventing race “extremists” and gang members from joining the Army, but since the Army already hires felons, criminals, racists and gang members, the real purpose behind the legislation is to codify the move to label gun owners, “anti-government” activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists, a process that has been ongoing since at least the start of the decade.
The bill’s definition of “people associated or affiliated with hate groups” include, “Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government,” or “Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.”
The evidence required to show that such an organization is affiliated with a violent hate group includes people possessing tattoos identifying them with the group, individuals who attend conferences or rallies sponsored by a “hate group,” people who engage in online discussion forums of an “extremist” nature, people who possess documents, books or photographs or simply “related materials as defined by the Attorney General” that represent “hate propaganda.”
The amendments introduced by Hastings were passed by the House and the bill now moves on to the Senate for approval before it is signed by the President.
Since the definition of an “extremist” has already been established by numerous federal documents over the last few years that list law-abiding citizens as domestic terrorists, Hastings’ amendments are simply an attempt to centralize the power to demonize such groups into the hands of the Obama administration.
“This is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a long, long time. In essence Attorney General Eric Holder — a Bill Clinton retread — will have the discretion to label Americans terrorists. Hastings is a dangerous man and should be forced to resign from congress. This amendment is part and parcel of the trend in this country to suppress dissent by patriots by calling them domestic terrorists,” warns writer Mike Baker.
Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) expressed his concern about the amendment on the house floor, noting that under Homeland Security’s very definition of what constitutes an “extremist”, the majority of Americans will be characterized as hate criminals.
“While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as “extremists,” warned Franks.
“I take extreme offense that the federal government — through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official — would dare to categorize people who are “dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration” as “right-wing extremists” and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings’ Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged,” said Rep. Franks.
As we reported in April, a recent Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment equates gun owners with violent terrorists and states that radical extremists are “stockpiling” weapons in fear of an Obama administration gun ban.
The document, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, states;
“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
A similar report was also issued by the DHS at the end of March which listed the “alternative media” with other radical extremist groups and implies that people who disagree with the mass media’s version of events are potential domestic terrorists.
Both documents were just the latest in a long sordid line of training manuals in which the federal government characterizes millions of American citizens as potentially violent terrorists who are a threat to law enforcement, and designates them under the umbrella term of “extremists,” in the same context cited in Hastings’ amendments.
As we have exhaustively documented with the MIAC report and a whole host of others, the federal government apparently has very little concern for any perceived terrorist threat to America coming from the MIddle East or Al-Qaeda cells within the country, and indeed if any such threat existed we are only in more danger, because the feds have been busy training law enforcement that law-abiding American citizens who exercise their legal right to purchase firearms or who exercise their first amendment right to discuss politics or run websites, are potential terrorists who want to instigate a violent revolution.
In addition, current Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course material states that the exercise of First Amendment rights in the U.S. constitutes terrorist activity.
Over the last few years we have documented countless examples of security assessment reports from the likes of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, which state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930’s and that it can only be a matter of time before the right “emergency” provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.
No one can claim now that this is merely a paranoid delusion – the government itself is training its law enforcement and military arms that protesters and people who use their First Amendment rights are domestic terrorists.
The facilities for round-ups of “extremists” who dare to exercise their First or Second Amendment rights are already being prepared, again with the help of Hastings, who sponsored (HR 645) – the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act.
The bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.
Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.
The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country.
The camps will double up as “command and control” centers that will also house a “24/7 operations watch center” as well as training facilities for Federal, State, and local first responders.
The bill also contains language that will authorize camps to be established within closed or already operating military bases around the country.
As we have previously highlighted, in early 2006 Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.
The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.”
As far back as 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.
A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, was more recently updated and the revision details a “template for developing agreements” between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.”
Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps.
Hastings’ efforts to have millions of law-abiding American citizens lumped in with racist gangs and designated as “extremists” arrives on the back of Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize “thought crimes,” that has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act).
S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:
“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)”
In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.
The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.
If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.
All of these coordinated moves to demonize informed, armed and pissed off Americans as extremists, terrorists and hate criminals represents the federal government’s final push to brainwash the population into accepting the notion that some Americans are dangerous, that they are enemies of the state, and that they can be targeted in the same way that victims of the “war on terror” are now being targeted across the world – through misappropriation of guilt, torture and indefinite imprisonment.
Looks like Alaska and Texas are going the way of Tennessee in way of telling the feds to stick their gun laws where the sun doesn’t shine
Executive Summary – There are now bills in the Texas and Alaska legislatures to exempt from Federal regulation firearms made and sold inside the respective states. The bills would not apply to firearms not made in the state or made in the state and sold outside of the state. These bills are very similar to the bill voted and signed into law in Montana. They are also similar to the bill proposed recently by Tennessee.
Texas Bill – This bill exempts from federal regulation firearms, accessories and ammunition made in the state of Texas intended for sale within Texas. This bill requires the State of Texas to pay for the defense of the Texas citizens if prosecuted by the Fed for firearms violations that this bill allows for. This means the State of Texas would throw the book at the Fed with a barrage of lawyers and seek a ruling that was favorable. It is really impossible for Texas to lose unless the Federal judges throw the case illegally.
The constitution has no provision for Federal gun control and to the contrary provides for gun ownership rights. These rights are specifically intended for military weapons, not hunting guns as one can glean from the use of the term “militia”. Militia is not a word used to describe foxhunts. If Texas got their favorable ruling they would attempt to use this to recover legal fees from the Fed. The decision would also be used to cookie cutter more favorable judgments. When other states saw this they too would pass similar laws. It is more likely the Fed would pick a case and jurisdiction where they could rely on the judge to throw the case their way.
This of course sets the stage for secession. Texas would have to blatantly accept an insulting and illegal ruling or just throw in the towel and secede. The constitution specifically grants certain rights to the fed and any other rights are reserved to the states. The fed can jump in and try to control firearm sales by screaming it is interstate commerce. This is a fact. Now when the guns are made and sold in Texas only there is no legal basis for the fed to step in and try to regulate them. A line has been drawn in the sand.
Alaska Firearms Freedom Act – This great piece of legislation was passed by the Alaska house 32 to 7 and now moves on the their senate for passage. The outlook is encouraging. This bill basically charges the Federal government with using the Interstate Commerce Clause and US Code 18 USC 922 as an excuse for them to regulate firearms that are involved in interstate commerce. We all know the goal of gun control is to confiscate privately owned guns. This bill calls for the State of Alaska Attorney General to defend any firearms manufacturer located inside of Alaska that is charged by the Fed when they a re compliant with the soon to be new Alaska law.
The Anti-Gun Fed Marches On – A member of the US house of Representative, Peter King of NY, has sponsored H.R. 219. The name of this bill is “The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009”. This absurd bill wishes to deny transfers of a firearm to any known or suspected dangerous terrorist. This is basically a way for the fed to stop anyone they want from getting a new gun by treating them as suspected terrorists. This can be anyone opposed to Obama, a pro-gun rights person, etc. It does not call for confiscation of existing firearms. This would be like the much abused no fly list. If any bureaucrat wishes you to be on the list, that is that. They never tell you that you are on the list. Because of nonsense like this the states rights firearms laws are needed or they will eventually get the guns.
Discussion – Well I always said Obama is the perfect President for secession. The states gun rights bills are a line in the sand. The Fed cannot safely move on to their next level of control unless they get the guns out of private hands. Obama causes a flurry of gun and ammo sales. Seems like people do not trust this junior inexperienced senator with birth certificate problems. Someone with a lot of money thrust this inexperienced guy at the public. He played well. He talked well. He has a personality. He slung a good line of promises, which he promptly broke. He magnified the money supply by a lot. He basically did nothing to even stop the freefall in the economy.
In a word he is a joke and he is there because he played well at the polls. Obama may not be with us much longer. His college transcripts at Occidental College showed his application for a Fulbright Scholarship, which is only available to a foreigner. His Grandmother says she witnessed his birth in Kenya. The Kenya government said his birthplace was going to be a monument in Kenya. Then someone told them a naturalized person cannot be President of the USA and then the birth records became classified as secret. The Supreme Court has finally agreed to review one of the cases on appeal regarding Obama not being qualified to be President by nature of his birth. Obama is going to have a lot of trouble remaining in office and this is a shame.
He is like the perfect storm, something that rarely ever occurs. Just what we needed to spur secession of the states from the union. He is insecure. He is buried with massive problems and running scared from the threat of riots. He is going to have a tendency to not deal with states rights. People in glass houses should not throw stones. He has a lot of problems even hanging onto his Presidency so the last thing he needs is for the states to bring his flaky citizenship issues into the legal fight over states rights thus magnifying the problems to the point where they make it to the headlines in the major papers. Another possibility is Obama will resign. He would not be prosecuted and then they would not have to void all of the bills he signed. Then there would be a transition government and probably a new election. This would be another wonderful time for more states rights bills and of course secession.
If the states get the fed out of their guns then the concept could be expanded. States could coin lawful silver and gold money. States could prohibit Federal Reserve notes. States could attack the federal debt as fraudulent and deny it. Stop income taxes. All sorts of wonderful possibilities.
The media says the states right gun laws are a legal challenge to the fed. This is a lie. What it is simply a way to defend themselves against a government saying they are empowered by the constitution and then not agreeing to abide by what rights the constitution grants them and to the individual states. Usurping power illegally is the term. The federal government does not want private citizens to have guns but they are sure fond of them and spend fortunes on getting the latest and greatest weaponry. It is guns they respect and fear.
originally published at: http://www.panamalaw.org
A Texas lawmaker wants to further push state sovereignty from the federal government.
That would exempt them from federal gun registration, dealer licensing rules and buyer background checks. State laws would still apply.
“This does two things,” said Berman, a Tyler Republican. “It tests our sovereignty in relationship to the federal government, and it would attract new small gun manufacturers to the state to manufacture certain types of weapons and ammunition that are only used in intrastate commerce.”
Guns and sovereignty are fiery issues in the Lone Star State, where residents resist federal regulations that could trample on either right.
Sparks flew last month when Gov. Rick Perry talked about how some Texans might want the state to secede from the U.S. and when a bill advanced in the Legislature to tell the federal government to “cease and desist” imposing regulations on the state.
Berman’s bill, similar to measures in Montana and Alaska, would push the sovereignty button even further.
The bill is pending in the House Public Safety Committee.
Berman said his bill is geared to help smaller “mom and pop” gun, ammunition and gun-part makers in Texas.
Those who make and sell their products in the state would put a “Made in Texas” stamp on items meant to stay in Texas.
Lawmakers say the federal government regulates firearms and ammunition through its power to regulate interstate commerce. If Texas prevents those products from leaving the state, federal officials’ arguments for regulating them are rendered moot, state lawmakers say.
“The bill requires every component to be made and stay in Texas,” Berman said. “If it leaves Texas, it will be subject to federal legislation.”
Critics say the bill is a long shot. They worry that if residents try to follow such a law, they would risk prosecution from the U.S. government, which may not recognize the legislation. Karl Dean Pifer, who owns KC Precision Ballistics in Granbury, said he has mixed feelings about the bill.
He and his wife and daughter make federally licensed ammunition at their home for up to .50-caliber firearms. Last year, they sold about 10,000 rounds — an amount they have already reached in the first quarter of this year, Pifer said.
While he would like some of the regulatory relief the bill could bring, Pifer said, he’s worried that manufacturers might not be under strict-enough guidelines.
“With no regulation, it could open it up to a lot of bad guys doing a lot of bad stuff,” he said. But “it would be great to sell within the state without any additional taxes or regulations.”
A similar bill is pending in Alaska, where House members have approved the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act.
Some there say they see the bill as a way to reclaim some of their rights from the federal government.
But Texas lawmakers are keeping an eye on the Montana measure, which takes effect Oct. 1. That is the gun-sovereignty law they believe most likely to be tested in court.
Some have said they hope to set off a court battle by finding a Montana resident to notify the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that he or she will build and sell “made in Montana” rifles without federal licensing.
If not allowed to proceed, the resident would file a lawsuit in the hope of making it to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling.
“This will be the test case, to challenge the federal law,” Berman said. “I’m very interested in our Second Amendment rights under the Constitution.”
How many homemade gun books have you read, only to discover that to make the thing work you needed a metal lathe or a milling machine? This book covers it all: legalities, concepts of ballistics, a basic 12 gauge shotgun design from pipe, simple gunpowder recipes, primer material, reloading and much more – including designs for a homemade double barrel, a muzzleloader, pipe sizes for other calibers, and more! This is one book that really delivers what it promises. Even if you have no intention of ever building a firearm, the information in this book is an insurance policy. No matter where you may live in the world or under what regime, the knowledge represented in this book offers you a chance to cope. It offers hope, not in nice wishes and goodwill, but in tangible fact and step-by-step illustrated instructions. For information purposes only…..
Get it now