MI ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ Legislation Introduced- will not put up with increasing federal powers

[The Straight Story]

Michigan ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ Legislation Introduced
This send a strong message to the Federal Government that Michigan will not put up with increasing federal powers.

Michigan --(AmmoLand.com)- House Bill 5232 introduced by Representative Phil Pavlov and cosponsored by 44 other Michigan Representatives seeks to:

“create the Michigan firearms freedom act; to make certain findings regarding intrastate commerce; to prohibit federal regulation of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition involved purely in intrastate commerce in this state; to provide for certain exceptions to federal regulation; and to establish certain manufacturing requirements.”

A brief statement from Rep. Pavlov’s website:

Following national threats to weaken our second amendment rights, state Rep. Phil Pavlov today introduced the Michigan Firearms Freedom Act to protect the rights of Michigan’s residents.

“The right to bear arms is guaranteed in our Constitution, and we will protect it in Michigan,” said Pavlov, R-St. Clair. “This legislation ensures that federal rules cannot restrict the right to buy or sell firearms in our state.”

Pavlov’s legislation, House Bill 5232, reaffirms Michigan’s right to regulate interstate commerce and states that any firearm or firearm accessory manufactured and sold in Michigan will not be subject to any federal mandates that relate to the manufacturing and sale of firearms or firearm accessories.

“Today we stand as the founders’ envisioned, with states controlling their own destiny within their borders,” Pavlov said. “But the federal government has greatly expanded its reach into areas that it shouldn’t and we are here to defend what belongs to Michigan.”

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/08/17/michigan-firearms-freedom-act-legislation-introduced/

[lapfog_1]

1. Fine, cut off all federal funding to MI, starting with the

Cash for Clunkers and the Auto Bailouts.

And remove all federal facilities while we are at it.

[krispos42]

5. This is going on in several states now

The basic idea behind federal regulation of guns is the interstate commerce clause. Michigan, Texas, and Montana (if memory serves) are arguing that if the gun is made, sold, and owned only in their state it's exempt from federal law because it's intra-state, not inter-state, commerce.


I don't think this will matter unless some kind of federal "assault weapon" ban becomes law.


It might allow full-auto firearms, though. Hmmm... good question.

[BobRossi]

9. Brilliant!

Put the screws to a totally unrelated group of people simply because they live and work in the same state.

How very compassionate.

[lapfog_1]

14. They elected those morons. They can elect someone else next time

who WILL abide by federal law.

The threat alone should make them back down from this bit of freeper nonsense.

What would YOUR alternative be... let them manufacture and sell whatever the hell they want to anyone (no background checks, full auto, RPGs, etc, etc)

[Romulox]

19. Michigan is a net tax donor.

:hi:

[Subdivisions]

21. Are you fucking crazy.? You better go back and

read your Constitution.

[and-justice-for-all]

2. Following national threats to weaken our second amendment rights,?

What the fuck are the talking about?

[krispos42]

3. The usual suspects

A new, expanded "Assault Weapons" Ban


A tax on ammunition


A magazine-capacity limit


Banning .50-caliber rifles


Federal ballistic-fingerprinting laws


Some kind of national registration plan.


Waiting periods.


One-gun-per-month limitations.


Whatever else the anti-gun people can think of to discourage gun ownership.

[and-justice-for-all]

4. I keep forgetting they vomit up that shit at regular intervals..

MY BAD! :shrug:

[krispos42]

6. And microstamping... can't forget that one!

:eyes:

[Winterblues]

17. Can you name the bill that has those things you mentioned in it?

Or is it all just a bunch of Bullshit designed to scare people?

[krispos42]

18. Sure

HR1022, a bill introduced in the previous Congress, reintroduced and expanded the old 1993 ban, only without a sunset provision. it also includes a ban on "large capacity ammunition feeding devices".

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022:

Several states, including California, Connecticut, New York, Massachusettes, and New Jersey have laws limiting magazine limits to 10 rounds.

In 2008 a California Assemblyman introduced a bill that would limit handgun ammunition purchases to those that have a permit ($50 bucks get it), would limit it to 50 rounds purchased per month (600 per year) and have a transaction fee of $3. And your purchase is recorded in a state database. Doing the math, it would cost you $68 a year to buy 600 rounds, or a tax of 11.3 cents per round. Since handgun ammo costs maybee 30 cents a round, that's a pretty hefty tax, percentage-wise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_2062
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2062_bill_20080804_amended_sen_v94.html


I don't think it passed, but the attempt was made.



This DID pass... microstamping.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/15/BAKQSPVS9.DTL


California already bans rifles chambered in .50 BMG by defining them as "assault weapons". Other states are considering banning them.


Maryland has a statewide ballistic registry. Not that it does much, but they have it; every new gun sold in Maryland for the past few years has had a fired bullet and ejected casing submitted to the database and the State Police analyse it and record the "fingerprint". California wanted to do something similiar but the microstamping bill passed instead.

If national ballistic registration occurs, it is de facto gun registration, as the purpose of the database is to track a bullet or casing back to the current owner of the gun.


Several states have waiting periods, typically one or two weeks. In some states it is all guns, some it is handguns. South Dakota has a 48-hour handgun waiting period, Minnesota has a one-week period for handguns and semiautomatic rifles, etc.


Several states also have a one-gun-a-month policy, such as Virginia and New Jersey. I think California does as well.



The Brady Campaign has a website that looks helpful. Click on a state and it gives a breakdown of laws that the state has, such as assault-weapon bans, waiting periods, child-storage, ballistic-fingerpring, guns at work, gun show "loophole", etc.

http://www.stategunlaws.org/

[Solly Mack]

7. *Pavlov’s* legislation on guns/freedom

Am I the only one snickering?

[villager]

8. The NRA *does* have them pretty well trained to jump when they want 'em to, eh?

n/t

[pipoman]

10. That NRA...deys' is da boogy mans, dey is

despite their 3 million members nation wide out of some 80 million gun owners. The NRA doesn't have anything to do with these types of laws beyond endorsing them.

[paulsby]

12. yea, just like every advocate for choice

is just a mindless drone of NARAL trained to jump on order.

[villager]

13. ...including their predictable defenders, lamenting that they aren't what they really are

...aren't doing what they're really doing, etc. Whaddya gonna believe? Your own eyes and ears, or the dispatched "truths" of the gun lobby!?

[pipoman]

11. As stated up thread

these laws have been getting some traction in several states. I believe it is an end run designed to defer further federal control over what should be state's rights/sovereignty. Since the early 1970's IIRC the feds have been slowly eroding the 'commerce clause' by exerting fiscal pressure on states to conform the states laws to fed laws. Examples would be speed limit requirements, during the 1970's required states to lower their speed limits to 55 or loose federal gasoline tax support for infrastructure. Another example would be standardization of intoxication limits for driving, same threat if states failed to adopt first the .1% standard, now the .08% standard. Another example is drug laws, particularly marijuana enforcement. This is no different. States who have large amounts of people in the hunting, shooting, ammo or firearm manufacturing business are largely opposed to excessive regulation on those industries. Further, I think this legislation by Michigan may be an attempt to lure some of the several Illinois firearms makers out of IL, as IL lawmakers have not proven friendly to their dozen or so arms makers and several have threatened to leave the state.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. this is a trend, not only michingan

and the same thing happened way back before the last civil war...

I know, I know some folks will say I am over reacting, crazy, the rest of the epithets, but the PATTERN is clear as day.

Oh and assuming this is signed, it will GO to the USSC which is exactly what this States Rights crowd wants.

[Statistical]

16. MT passed a similar law recently. The misinterperted commerce clause has to go.

They way the courts have interpreted the commerce clause basically all restrictions on federal power might as well be burned. The feds have used the commerce clause to allow virtually any law on anything Despite the CC being intended to be used in a limited fashion based on legislation in 100 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

The commerce clause was more designed more to prevent NC from banning VA tobacco in favor of NC farmers or PA making steel produced in other states subject to different regulation & costs.

The courts have ruled that food you grow for your own consumption with no selling to anyone or even the intent to sell can be regulated as "interstate commerce". Tomorrow the federal govt could pass a law outlawing organic gardening and mandating all vegtable gardens be sprayed with insecticide and fertilized with chemical fertilizer. The CC as currently interperted would allow that mandate as "protecting" interstate commerce.

I expect more states to join the backlash.

[1]

20. go michigan! outstanding...

[xchrom]

22. 'Pavlov' is right. nt