State Rights

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Double Deuce, Feb 2, 2010.

  1. Double Deuce

    Double Deuce New Member

    Jun 1, 2009
    Hopefully this will be passed in UT and catch on in other states.

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Guns made and kept in Utah would be exempt from federal regulations under a measure the Utah Senate has initially approved.

    Senate Bill 11 mirrors one signed into law in Montana last year that's intended to trigger a federal court battle.

    The Senate approved the bill Tuesday 19-10. It needs one more formal vote before advancing to the House.

    The goal is to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States.

    Efforts to bypass that authority have been heard before by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    In 2005, the court upheld federal regulation of marijuana in California, even if its use is limited to noncommercial purposes and is grown and used within a state's borders.
  2. wpage

    wpage Active Member

    Aug 25, 2009
    Sounds neat. Don t think it will work in Northeast

  3. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    Intrastate commerce. Subtle difference, yes, but important.

    There is a court case floating about out there somewhere where a farmer was held to be liable under "interstate commerce" regulations because he grew his own wheat for his own chicken's consumption.

    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2010
  4. My state, Florida, and many other states are doing the same.
  5. lockednloaded45

    lockednloaded45 New Member

    Apr 17, 2009
    southcentral MO
    Until we stop taking fed money we will always be slaves to the fed. Here is part of a conversation from an article at .

    "Glen Warchol ran what is perhaps the shortest piece seen in the Salt Lake Tribune in recent history. In 10th Amendment cold turkey he quickly leaves us with the truth about what we are asking for and how we must accomplish it. He describes a very brief conversation between U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Rep. Chaffetz asked what it would take for the federal government to recognize the 10th Amendment rights of the states, a fair question asked to someone who could truly articulate the answer. “Stop taking their money,” is the answer Warchol reports and it is an answer known to be the true, root challenge. We must stop taking the money and mimicking the income tax system as a start to reclaiming sovereignty."

    Will it be painful, yep to some extent.
    Can we do it, yep, but we have to change the way we live and get rid of entitlements. No more handouts.
    It actually means resetting back to earler times. I know alot of people would not have the stomach for it.
    Just my 2 cents )
  6. Doug.38PR

    Doug.38PR Member

    Oct 21, 2008
    North Louisiana
    wish Louisiana would do the same thing
  7. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Second that Doug and Arkansas too.
  8. Double Deuce

    Double Deuce New Member

    Jun 1, 2009
    Just an update the Bill did pass.
  9. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    I wish the Republic of Texas would do it too. But Rick "The Hairdo" Perry ain't man enough to do it, he likes Fedzilla's money too much. Debra Medina is man enough to do it and start the nullification process of Fedzilla's power in Texas.
  10. islenos

    islenos New Member

    Mar 16, 2004
    West Texas
    The fed gets it's money from the states, then doles it back to the states with little strings attached. So Fedzilla's money is really ours, so why not get some of it back.

    To stop the fed, the States need to stop sending in our tax dollars. If every state refuses to send the fed the tax dollars collected for the month, the fed would go broke within the week.
  11. kingcuke

    kingcuke Member

    Mar 22, 2009
    Cucumber Island
    What is the forum's consensus on the subject of paramount national citizenship? This revolves around the 14th Amendment privileges and immunities clause which the court pretty much ignores based on stare decisis of the Slaughter House ruling in 1873.
    My pocket constitution starts out "We the People of the United States"
    States Rights is a very sticky issue if for no other reason the term state, much like the term militia in the 2cd, wasn't used the same way then as it is now.
    At the time of the Constitution there were essentially 13 independent sovereign nations, not much of a bible reader, but there's that bit about serving two masters. Can a sovereign government exist under another authority without being subservient to that authority?
    Wouldn't it be nice if the Bill of Rights applied to all citizens everywhere and in all regards both civil and business?
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Ala. lawmaker proposes gun rights state amendment Dec 30, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum NAACP invited the UN to meddle in states rights Mar 10, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum GOA's State of the Union Update on Gun Rights Jan 21, 2010
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Don't need no stinkin' States Rights Aug 21, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 10 states now have magazine capacity limits - when will it end? Sep 8, 2015