The Tenth Amendment movement sweeping across the nation has made its way to the Beehive State. The Utah-Made Firearm Act states that all firearms, firearm accessories, and "ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state [of Utah] is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce." The bill, SB11, was signed by Utah Governor Herbert Cary on February 26 after passing through the state legislature in a near-party line vote.

SB11 is part of a series of similiar Firearms Freedom Acts (FFA) that have also been passed in Montana and Tennessee and introduced in other states. The FFA openly challenges the federal contention that it has the authority to regulate firearms under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, by 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.

Utah State Senator Margaret Dayton explained the motivation behind SB11 and other 10th Amendment legislation. "The federal overreach is out of control.... That tyrannical overreach is what we're trying to stop with this bill ... [and the passage of SB11] illustrates the universal yearning for freedom and shows the people still feel the spark that inspired our ancestors at Lexington and Valley Forge. My hope is that the march toward tyranny can be turned back with our votes."

Opponents of the bill and similar state sovereignty legislation argue that such legislation would never be found to be constitutional by federal courts. According to retired University of Utah law professor John Flynn, "It would really be quite ridiculous of the [Supreme Court] to even take a case like this.... You'd have huge impact across the federal code." Flynn considers SB11 and similar legislation "asinine" because they ignore Supreme Court precedent that interprets the interstate commerce clause into an almost unlimited grant of regulatory power to Congress.

As The New American has reported before, it is highly unlikely that such legislation will be validated in federal court but that shouldn't be the goal of passing FFAs.

Some activists are heading down the fruitless path of endless legal challenges in federal courts to validate their state nullification legislation... While good-hearted, these groups are unnecessarily expending their time and energy. Just as Thomas Woods explained at the Campaign for Liberty conference, entrusting one party (the federal government) with the sole power to interpret a contract (U.S. Constitution) is the problem. Most observers familiar with the centralizing nature of the federal courts would be shocked if the courts suddenly did a complete 180 and ruled that an act like the Freedom Firearms Act was constitutional. This was exactly why citizens took their battles to the state legislatures. If Montanans were serious about their sovereignty, they would simply start following the terms of the Freedom Firearms Act and ignore any federal directives.

Opportunities for such nullification actions are presenting themselves as more and more states pass FFAs. A Firearm Freedom Act easily passed through the state Senate in Wyoming and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Dave Freudenthal. Wyoming's law includes a provision not in earlier versions of FFAs. The Billings Gazette reports that "Wyoming’s Firearms Freedom Act, though, is harsher ... as it states that any state or federal official who tries to enforce any federal gun law on a firearms made and sold in Wyoming could face a $2,000 fine and up to a year in prison."

State Representative Allen Jaggi, author of the Wyoming FFA, said that the bill is largely a symbolic gesture. "I think unless we have some overzealous federal officers, this is not a real big deal to them... I’m hoping that nothing really happens except that other states see, ‘Hey they did it — let’s do it. Let’s assert our state rights.’"

Similar legislation is gaining momentum in Oklahoma. State Senator Randy Brogdan, author of the Oklahoma FFA, told the media, "I just don't accept the idea that the federal government has any right to regulate firearms... If we did not have the right to bear arms, we would have no country." The Oklahoma FFA passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and is now with the state House of Representatives. Brogdan added, "As a private citizen and as a state senator, I believe it is important that we guard against the continued erosion of the Bill of Rights, including the right to protect ourselves and our families.... This legislation reaffirms our Second Amendment rights."

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (9)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Michael Wolfe said:

Grassroots fire spreads! It is great to see the fires of freedom spreading. Legislation like this, and other related nullification coupled with grassroots constitutionalists getting into politics across the country is laying the groundwork for an actual return to the Constitution!

March 10, 2010 | url

Flu-Bird said:

Kudos utah Good for UTAH for reconizing our constitutional rights and especialy our 2nd amendment rights this should spread through all 50 states

March 10, 2010

BambiB said:

John Flynn should know better You asses. Why don't you publish the length limit so people can tailor their comments BEFORE they waste time writing them?

March 10, 2010

Henry Brown said:

Forget the Fed Absolutely right. Just pass the bills and don't expect the federal government to suddenly repent of its criminality in order to endorse a check against its power.

March 10, 2010 | url

John Bates Thayer said:

... To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?

March 10, 2010

Beachell said:

Wyoming Gov. Freudenthal signed the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act but has some concerns about it. He sent a letter about this to the state legislature. This can be read at his website. http://governor.wy.gov/Media.aspx?MediaId=1123

March 11, 2010

Neville said:

Re: Wyoming It is abundantly clear that Gov. Freudenthal's signing of the Wyoming FFA and his letter to the legislature are calculated to draw and direct federal scrutiny to Wyoming - it is a lightning rod begging for a court challenge. A FFA law, duplicating the Montana/Alaska wording (as I recall) was proposed here in Texas but never got brought up for a vote. When I suggested a couple of wording changes to Rep. Berman, he said he did not want to change anything because the intent was to draw a court challenge and stand or fall together with those other states.

March 12, 2010

Neville said:

More Wyoming I also have to agree with JBS on this one - don't sit around and court a court challenge, just start doing business the new way. If Wyoming imprisons a BATFE agent, then that's guaranteed to end up in Federal Court, but they could instead opt to take the agent into custody and drive him/her to the state border with orders not to return.

March 12, 2010

PlainOldAmerican said:

... More Wyoming, I would LOVE to have the job of driving feds to the border and kicking them out of the bus. I am dismayed that too many Americans believe that SCOTUS is the last word on constitutionality. How many thousands of examples are necessary to prove that the founder's fear of tyranny by the judiciary were most prescient? We are going to revive the constitution. Better to do it by the state legislatures than the folks having to prove the wisdom of the second amendment.

March 12, 2010