Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
The Republican homage to Sandy Hook – anything goes state gun laws
Has the Republican “Guns R Us” crowd been moved to do anything since the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter of 20 enfants innocents? Oh dear me yes. The gun-nut homage to those darling children is to push even harder for a piece of legislation called the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA, with apologies to the wonderful Future Farmers of America organization). The name may have a ring to it. A total of 34 states have either passed the Act, are about to vote on it or are in the process of introducing the legislation. My state of residence, South Carolina belongs to the latter group.
Lee Bright, a Republican State Senator had introduced the bill in 2011 but it somehow got lost in committee. Bright decided to pre-file the same piece of legislation December 13th, the day before a mentally unstable young man shot to death the aforementioned children, his mother, 6 other adults and himself. Any human being with the tiniest shred of decency would have at least symbolically withdrawn the bill for a period of months. Bright kept it right where it was, rarin’ to be voted into law after the latest multi-death ‘inconvenience’ blew over, and in selfish and indifferent South Carolina, that would be much sooner than later.
Montana started the musket ball rolling with The Montana Firearms Freedom Act, first passed in October of ’09. The legislation, shortened to the Firearms Freedom Act in all other titled legislation calls for states to ignore federal gun laws in favor of state laws that allow the manufacture, privately or commercially, of guns with a few restrictions (no fully automatic weapons for instance), but no federal restraints. Feel free to whip up bullets and accessories as well, unFEDered by pesky Uncle Sam. I should add that there are no background checks, dealer licensing or registration imperatives in any of the state bills.
Bright, who appears to not have had an original thought during his career in the SC General Assembly did what Montana and every other FFA state did. He essentially followed model legislation whose origins are being kept secret as far as I could tell. But model legislation it is. Here are a few examples. The virtually identical verbiage cannot possibly be a coincidence. A single source wrote the legislation, sent it to the state legislatures and told the Republican Representatives and Senators to rubber-stamp it. Here are just a few samples; I could have provided dozens.
Oklahoma bill: Firearms Freedom Act bill: (2/7/11)
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
This is a match for the Montana bill: “Montana Firearms Freedom Act bill: 10/1/09
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
Now for the Second Amendment section of the Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act bill: (2/7/11).
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Oklahoma was admitted to statehood in 1907, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Oklahoma and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Oklahoma and the United States in 1907; and…
Here the virtually identical wording of the South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act bill: (12/13/2012)
Whereas, the second amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that South Carolina was admitted to statehood in 1788, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of South Carolina and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by South Carolina and the United States in 1788; and…
We don’t want to leave Sarah out. Here’s the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act Bill: 26th Legislature (2009-2010)
(4) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reserves to
the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was intended at the time that Alaska was admitted to statehood in 1959, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Alaska and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Alaska and the United States in 1959.
You can play along by going to firearmsfreedomact.com/st…
Assorted court actions are inevitable and the “ef the Feds” crowd ain’t gonna be happy. There’s a little something called the ‘Commerce Clause’. Of course all the Bubba scholars out there realize that the Supreme Court has already decided that the clause allows the federal government regulatory powers over the manufacture of firearms in a given state. Translation; nullification nuttery notwithstanding, DC overrides all that FFA nonsense.
Of course all the elected attorney reps and senators were and are well aware of the Supremes reversal of U.S. v. Stewart that set the standard for federal regulation of guns sold intrastate. Bright didn’t get the memo as he continues to insist the feds can’t enforce their gun laws in an individual state. They can, Lee; they can! Follow Bright’s advice and you’re next abode will have visiting hours.
FFA is really just another ploy to capture the goober vote. And, of course, in my part of the country it works every time. I’m really getting weary of Deep South Congressional and state elections being decided at the point of a gun.
Related Posts :
Comprehension or understanding (intellection) is a psychological process whereby one is able to fully gr ...
Today, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling by Montana Supreme Court's ruling that Citizens United does n ...
On the heels of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introducing an amendment to overturn Citizens United, Sen. Ri ...
Sarah Jones wrote here the other day about the unconstitutional responses of Republicans who claim Obama ...
During a Reddit IAmA chat, President Obama made some big news today by announcing that he supports a con ...
40 Responses to The Republican homage to Sandy Hook – anything goes state gun laws
Public Service Advertisements
Reynardine
Jan. 5th, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Well, most kids who get mowed down are icky brown kids. At Sandy Hook, they were wealthy white kids, but in Connecticutt, most would have been raised as eevil libruls. Little girls who are strafed to death in school were getting too much eddication, and would have grown up to be anti-fetus feminazis. Killing them is positively pro-life. See, it’s all good!
Koetting
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 4:51 pm
While I understand that you are trying to be satirical, this is the most insensitive and disgusting thing I have ever read. You and all that approve of this repulsive drivel should be ashamed. Not only do you further divide the country on this important issue but you ridicule the dead openly for their family to see. Shame Shame Shame.
@Shiva – As moderator you should delete this.
C.
Jan. 5th, 2013 at 10:29 pm
Sadly, it may take an awful event in the south or other red states for these dimwits to wake up, and say enough, but probably not, they’ll just get more afraid and gun up all the more. It’s all they know.
KatzKids
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 1:58 am
Even an awful event wouldn’t make a dent in their “thinking.” It will just make them run to the nearest gun show or gun shop to reinforce their arsenals. “More guns” they’ll yell, “Gotta have more guns, can’t have enough guns, that’ll fix it.”
Next stop – the local drugstore for their viagra fix.
Tina
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 7:49 am
Americans love their reality TV ,so I say,lets show them some reality.The media should show the pictures of those beautiful children’s riddled bodies laying on the floor of their classrooms.Now if that doesn’t move folks to think differently about gun laws,than we are really f%&*ed as a country.
be funk note
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 8:05 am
We have plenty of material for weekly episodes too, unfortunately. I think something like 400 people have died from guns in the US in the weeks since the shooting occurred.
M.R.M
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 9:33 am
sad but true, thats what they do in other countrys so reality sets in!
Koetting
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Education is a great idea Tina! This education should start at a fairly young age too so that we can counteract the glorified demonstrations coming out of hollywood. Knowledge is power.
Candra
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 9:06 am
We have a “Debt Clock”, so how about a “Gun Death Clock”. We can all watch in real time as the numbers roll ever higher.
Reynardine
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 9:18 am
I like it. One in every county seat in the nation!
Chip
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Why stop at Gun-Death? Why not include DUI Deaths? Why not include Deaths by drowning. There are so many ways children can get killed and having a Clock to display the loss to society is a brilliant way of demonstrating that fact to everyone.
Anne
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 9:27 am
I love the way that SOME gun owners blather about “freedom” to own guns, with apparently no regard for the callous, unthinking image they are conveying so soon after the major tragedy in Newtown. It’s mind-boggling that anyone in this country thinks that sensible gun control measures deny them “freedom.” The problem with that line of “thinking” is that without some checks and balances pertaining to rights and responsibilities, there is no true freedom.
Chip
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 2:04 pm
“…It’s mind-boggling that anyone in this country thinks that sensible gun control measures deny them “freedom.” ”
It is equally mind-boggling that anyone would think that limiting someone else’s Rights is somehow beneficial to everyone. Wouldn’t you be afraid that trying to limit someone else’s Rights would eventually lead to your Rights also being limited?
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Your rights are not limited. You are allowed to have your guns, its just that the supreme court says the government can decide what guns
Chip
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 3:06 pm
I believe that is the first step onto the slippery-slope argument.
The issue at hand is guns and how the government is trying to limit, however indirectly, the application of an individual’s Constitutionally protected Right.
When this particular Right is limited what happens then? You agreed to have this Right limited which means you have limited recourse to fight the future limiting of any other Right. If you voluntarily give up the Right to Bear Arms you can not then fight to retain your 4th Amendment Rights. When you give up one you put yourself in a position of loosing all of them.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 3:23 pm
The supreme court has already answered your questions The right to own weapons is not defined as the unfettered right to own weapons of any type
Your 4th amendment quote is not valid. No one with a brain shoots cops coming into their home whether illegally or not
Chip
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 4:22 pm
“…unfettered right to own weapons of any type”
You are the only person saying that.
OK, since you don’t understand the 4th Amendment, lets try one you claim to already understand…. the First Amendment and its Freedom of Expression:
If you voluntarily give up one Right, any of them, you can not them claim to defend any other Right as off-limits. If you voluntarily give up the Right to Bear Arms you weaken your argument for defending your Right to a Free Press. If you allow certain restrictions on ‘this’ Right you automatically have to support restrictions on every other Right. If you support ‘common sense’ restrictions on gun ownership than you have to accept ‘common sense’ restrictions on your 7th Amendment Rights and allow the courts to decide if you really need a jury of your peers because it really is a common sense restriction to allow your case to be heard without the benefit of a Jury because it is so much faster and cheaper that way.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 4:41 pm
The 4th amendment address’s your property being illegally seized by the government.
And I am not the only one saying you do not have unfettered rights to own any weapon you want. The supreme court said it. hence the assault ban that was in place until president cheney dropped it
Your last paragraph is interesting, but hardly true. You have lost your right to habeous corpus and using your logic, your right to carry weapons. You have lost the rights in the 4th amendment as your property can be seized without warrant. No more guns?
Your logic is not valid
Joe
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 10:18 am
It’s not the guns that do the killing. It is easy to blame the item and not the person. We need to enforce the laws that we have. People are not responsible for their actions in our nation. If crimes were actually punished, then we may not have as many. Mainstreaming the mentally ill doesn’t help either. Americans need to wake up and smell the truth
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 10:38 am
How do you figure people are not responsible? We put them in jail for murder dont we? How many people get away with shooting someone?
Reynardine
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 10:44 am
I wish you guys would quit using the same cheat sheet. It’s unsanitary.
Joe
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 10:23 am
The “Death Clock” idea is only so-so. What about cars? What about fists? More deaths occur from vehicles than guns. Again we are blaming the item and not the cause. It’s easier than admitting that our justice system is failing.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 10:40 am
So now that we know more deaths are from cars then guns, we dont do anything about guns?
Koetting
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
So now that we know more deaths are from cars then guns, we don’t do anything about cars?
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Irrational. A car is not meant to kill. A gun is
Koetting
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 6:26 pm
Hoplophobia is irrational as well. So is the belief that additional gun controls are going to make you safer. Analysis of the impact of gun control laws, by Kleck, covered 18 major types of gun control and every major type of violent crime or violence (including suicide), and found that gun laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates. However, it just makes sense to restrict those convicted of felonies or who demonstrate mental illness from owning a gun. It makes no sense to ban a 22 caliber rifle that has never been used in a crime regardless of its magazine size or if it has a pistol grip. Quite frankly a scope makes a rifle more deadly than a pistol grip or high capacity magazine ever did.
The most interesting issue on gun control is how differently people in urban and rural communities view guns and is one big reason why Washington (and those of us on this forum) has a difficult time getting on the same page when it comes to gun-control legislation.
And finally, but really not the most important fact, is that most (not all) country people that have guns, use them responsibly to keep themselves occupied. We don’t have cinema’s, shopping centers, or coffee shops to keep ourselves occupied. Hunting is not a once a year thing, it is a way of life. For those of you that think that hunting is cruel, don’t forget where your next hamburger came from. I assure you that cow you just ate was mistreated by the slaughter houses more than the deer were by the hunters.
And yes, I am from the country, born and bred. I challenge you to come out to the country and rub elbows with those that feed America. You may just have a positive experience with guns and develop an appreciation for the rural perspective. And yes, my 90 year old grandfather loves his AR15 with high capacity magazine and red dot. He needs all the help he can get. Bet that put a different image in your head didn’t it. Best of all, it is true.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 6:38 pm
No it isnt. It isnt reasonable to say a person with a car is going to kill you. It IS rational to think a person witha gun is going to kill you.
The only fair comparison here is how pany people are killed with cars in which the person behind the wheel INTENTIONALY killed the person. You cant say more people die from cars then guns until you compare them in a rational manner. Then you can separate out people dying in accidents to people dying from gun accidents
Of course by far the vast amount of people with guns will never kill someone. They just dont need a military style high capacity killing weapon.
I must say you are diving off the deep end. I was born and raised on a farm, hunted a good part of my life and still have my guns. I am not for taking the peoples guns. Just the ones they do not need. If you cant be happy without your ar15, then you know what to do. You will only need one bullet. There, I got a silly as you did
Lets not forget that people contact their representatives. Right now by polls, the people want stricter gun laws and to be rid of the crap that no one needs. You are running out of arguments
Koetting
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
I don’t think my opinions are silly. Or yours. Additionally, I don’t appreciate you making light of my death. I would not do that to you and expect the same in return, regardless of what crazy ideas might be presented.
Do you not think that a drunk driver has the figurative gun to your head? They intentionally get wasted and then get behind the wheel. Although I don’t know this, I don’t think that Lanza knew his victim’s either. Yep .. I know that drunk drivers get manslaughter and Lanza will go to a mental facility. These two examples are not different, in my opinion.
It is not rational to think everyone with a gun is out to kill you. Do you fear the police, FBI, or the military ? I hope not.
I encourage everyone to let their opinions known to their representation. Note that I never stated that I am not in favor of stricter gun laws. But note that I am in favor of laws that actually produce the desired result. Which is increased public safety. At this time, I know of no proposed bills that will actually get rid of any ‘crap’, as they all grandfather in the current weapons. You may be surprised to know that I actually am in favor of several bills.
I agree … no one needs “A military style high capacity killing weapon.” No one needs cars. No one needs alcohol. But … That doesn’t mean that a law abiding citizen doesn’t have a right to have them.
I am running out of arguments ? And here I thought we were sharing ideas and opinions.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 11:56 pm
We are speaking rationalities here. I think you can see the difference I was trying to make.
Everyone needs cars. People can do without some weapons. People who are smart could do without alcohol.
But face it. Each subject has an industry with vast money behind it. While we go on about the constitution, the corporations really run this anyways. You really have only the rights the big corps decide you get
Chip
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 2:10 pm
“…I am not for taking the peoples guns. Just the ones they do not need.”
Your elitism showing.
Who gets to decide what is ‘reasonable’ when then term “reasonable gun control’ is used?
Who gets to decide what anyone ‘needs?’ What is the criteria for the ‘need?’ And what recourse does someone have if someone else decided they don’t need it but actually do.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Not elitism, just common sense.
The supreme court answered your questions already.
Chip
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 3:00 pm
“…Not elitism, just common sense.”
Tomato, Tomatoe.
What you call ‘common sense’ I call elitism.
We aren’t going to convince the other of anything so lets continue to agree to disagree.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Then you have to call a majority of this country eleitists
Chip
Jan. 8th, 2013 at 12:34 am
“…Then you have to call a majority of this country eleitists”
That is where your understanding of the Bill of Rights fails. The Rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights are not subject to Majority Rule except by a three-fourths majority of the states when ratifying an Amendment. Simply put it requires a super-majority to effect someone’s Constitutional Rights. Until you can get 38 States to agree with Gun Controls the text of the document is pretty simple… shall not be infringed.
Joe
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 11:01 am
Guns need to be controlled. The crime needs to be punished. Prisons don’t deter crime. The old biblical laws worked for a reason. The prison sys is bloated. Rehabilitation is not always the answer. Sitting in prison again and again for committing crime is not working. We have to look at all the problems not just the most noticeable ones. Screaming for gun control wont stop crime from happening. Look at the countries that have no guns. Crime is higher there than here. The problem is more the way that things are presented by the media and viewed by the public. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Joe
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 11:08 am
People do get away with shootings. They also get away with vehicular and bludgeoning deaths. If I beat a man to death with my fists and then plead “temporary insanity” and spend 6 years in a prison, then I’ve got away with it. The punishment should fit the crime. If I know the I will be put to death for killing someone then I’m more likely to think things thru before committing that crime
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 11:20 am
Certainly what you say is true, people do get away with it.
But to quote your previous post: “The prison sys is bloated”. I think that says people do get punished. Far more then not
Mary
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 11:38 am
The tea haters and the rest of the repugs in red states will soon be gone. It will take a while to undo ALL OF THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE PEOPLE THEY WERE REPRESENTING.
sherrie heckendorn
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 4:11 pm
It appears to be the work of ALEC as to the ‘gun’ laws. ALEC is also behind the ‘stand your ground laws’
Robert P. Doyle SR
Jan. 7th, 2013 at 5:28 pm
The simple fact is we screwed up when we ended the draft. All Americans at age certain should serve two years active duty in National Service, with four years active reserve service forces a personal appreciation of what a United States means in reality. Too many politicians with no service have really taken out our unity. Wake the fuque up and help restore a full service standard for all Americans.
Guns are inantimate objects. It takes a crazy person to do these mass shootings. To date most have been “treated” with psychotropic drugs, have exhibited odd behaivours, with no notice of their intent to “kill all you” who they have chosen as their victims.
2013 is here, let’s work together to undo the evil