It seems there is hardly a day passing that does not witness another one of our rights infringed by an aggressive and activist federal government. In this atmosphere, states are reasserting their sovereignty and their rights under the Constitution. The state of Montana has made a law directly challenging the right of the feds to regulate firearms that are manufactured and kept in the state.

The basis for federal jurisdiction in this and so many other matters is the commerce clause of the Constitution, which allows the feds to regulate interstate commerce. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 3, in reciting the powers granted to the federal government, lists: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes[.]” Upon those four words (that I have bolded) the feds have built an empire reaching to infinity.

It is that overreaching that is supposed to be blocked by the Tenth Amendment which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Second Amendment was supposed to secure the right to keep and bear arms. Note that it does not say “Congress shall make no law…” as so many do. It says “the right…shall not be infringed. That means not by anyone, not any government, not the state, not the city, not the guy who runs a video rental store.

Print this story Email this story Post a Comment ADVERTISEMENT

Reading all three of those provisions together it is obvious the feds can control only firearms that move in interstate commerce. If they are made, sold and used strictly within a state, they are protected from federal regulation by the Tenth Amendment.

It is this right that Montana seeks to preserve by having passed a law saying any gun, gun accessory or ammunition made in the state and intended for use there is exempt from federal regulation. The purchase or possession of a firearm (including automatic weapons), silencer or ammunition would not be subject to any federal regulation. No records need be kept, no background investigation is needed, no waiting periods apply.

Ooooh. That little thrill you feel is freedom.

The Montana law is effective Oct. 1. Similar legislation is under varying degrees of consideration by Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina and Texas.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told me there are at least 20 states working on such legislation. But not Arizona. Arizona has a provision in its Constitution similar to that in the U.S. Constitution. It says, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”

The impetus for the Montana legislation might have been the proposed new federal regulation known as the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. The bill would impose criminal penalties up to 10 years in prison for:

1. Transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions.

2. A licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act.

3. Failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours

4. Failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days.

5. Keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.

Most Americans do not want to live under that level of regulation and the Constitution says they don’t have to.

The right protected is the right to “keep and bear” arms. The right to keep arms has been widely, although not universally, acknowledged. But the right to bear arms has quietly been ignored. This is the right to carry arms. It doesn’t say openly or concealed. And being a right, it cannot be licensed. You should not have to get permission from some government employee to exercise a right. It is clearly designated as a right under the Constitution. It cannot properly be considered a privilege.

And this may surprise you. The word “gun” does not appear anywhere in the article. Not even the word “weapons” appears. It protects the right to keep and bear arms. Arms is a broader term than weapons and a much broader term than guns. Theoretically, you should be able to walk down the street carrying a nuclear bomb and not be detained. But at least it should be recognized that there is no exception for automatic weapons or guns that look scary.

Arizona should join the other states that are asserting their sovereignty and demand the federal government respect and live within the Constitution.

Contact Lionel Waxman at territorial@waxmanmedia.com or visit his website: www.newflashpoint.com.