Arizona passed new gun legislation that supercedes federal law

[Pheonyx]

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2307h.htm


This is the second of two gun bills that were passed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer today; the first was that secondary governments (ie city councils) cannot charge additional taxes on firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition... that one I had no problem with since many of these municipalities were charging excessive amounts of tax.

The one in the link is the troubling one... it basically throws the Brady Bill out the window by saying as long as the weapon is manufactured in Arizona (and marked as such in a visible location) and STAYS in Arizona, it does not have to be registered or regulated. This also applies to ammunition and accessories "not essential to the basic operation of a firearm", including flash suppressors... full auto conversion kits are not protected by this law.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe that people should have the ability to own firearms and use them responsibly, but this just opens a huge can of worms. I had no problem with the 7-day waiting period for handguns, which includes ballistics registration of said firearm in case it is used in a crime as well as a criminal background check. When this bill takes effect in August/September, you can walk in, buy an Arizona-made gun and walk out in 5 minutes, no registration and no linking the gun to you if it is used in a crime.

Does the Governor think that these weapons and accessories (flash suppressors/silencers mainly) will not be transported out of state illegally because she says so? The city governments around the state are cutting police budgets because they cannot afford them yet this will spike the number of weapon related crimes in the state and within a couple months of enactment, crimes with weapons marked "Made In Arizona" will start to show up in other parts of the country.

The weird thing is that an extremist pro-gun rights group threatened this governor's life not too long ago, and she passes legislation that makes it easier for them to kill her with an unregistered, basically untraceable weapon... that boggles my mind.

Ashes to ashes,
Pheonyx

[Krensky]

Seriously, don't these people know the law? Did the fall through a time warp from th first half of the nineteenth century.

Nullification is tantamount to sedition.

My ancestors burried in Gettysburg are rolling in their graves.

[ThunderMonkey]

Seriously, don't these people know the law? Did the fall through a time warp from th first half of the nineteenth century.

Nullification is tantamount to sedition.

My ancestors burried in Gettysburg are rolling in their graves.

The Arizona legislators and voters are scared individuals fueled by some preconceived notion that the boogie-man is out to get them. They construct very elaborate conspiracies in order to justify that they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

[Desertpuma]

Fact of the matter is you cannot blame Governor Brewer entirely for this. She did not suggest, pass, create or support the bill in the State Congress. The fact is that the Arizona Congress made this happen by a large margin on the floor before it ever got to her desk.

Are their problems with it? Hell, yes.

Now part of it does say that no components of the manufacture may be imported from other States in order for the weapon in question to qualify. This does mean that if the bolt or receiver or framework of the wood for the rifle is manufactured outside of Arizona, then it does not qualify under this law and must be registered. It only affects those firearms completely constructed from materials within Arizona.

It also does not apply to firearms that use explosive or chemical projectiles (including ammunition of any type similar) and fires two or more shots with one pull of a trigger.

Everyone should read it as Arizona takes a step back toward the Wild West but also a step forward toward building a set of businesses in Arizona and providing jobs to people.

Not so Thunder. We are not scared as a State but we have dealt with and lead the US in illegal immigration, grand theft auto, drug cartels setting up shop, meth production, and Minutemen actions. Now, some of that has decreased in the past two years, partially due to the recession. But the Minutemen have also had their effect too. In some sense, we are putting our States Rights on full display which is no different than other State government reacting to the Health Care Reform with similar actions involving not requiring their citizens to have to purchase that which they do not want. From a forensic standpoint, a gun in Arizona that is stamped Made In Arizona will be more traceable since their will be only so many companies that will be able to operate within our borders. It will draw down the distinctions fairly quickly and this law, if rumor is correct, will be followed still requiring serial numbers for the weapon, just not Federal serial numbers.

[Krensky]

Puma,

Your state legislature and govorner just nullified a Federal law.

That is not a grey area. It's sedition. It's the thing that lead to that little squabble in the 1860s called the Civil War.

There's no excuses or rationalizations here.

[ThunderMonkey]

I perceive increased gun sales or the advocating of buying guns as a fear tactic. It's a symptom of a much larger issue that some are trying to portray or advocate rather than the issue itself.

Granted my comment was baseless in regards to laying down a blanket description about an entire group without taking into account the individual members.

[Desertpuma]

I'm looking at the actually act and expecting it to be challenged. It is no more sedition than it was for the several states that passed laws affecting how they would be affected by the Health Care Reform law that just passed.

Also to consider, and I'm betting the grounds for the defense of the Law, was that the Federal regulations regarding the registrations of firearms were for Interstate Commerce when this is regarding Intrastate Commerce.

Am I saying they are 100% right and correct to do it? No. But I understand where it comes from and, fact of the matter, they are not waging war or firing on Federal troops or committing to an act of war. If you read the bottom of the page that the link goes to, they reference their legal findings to back up why this can exist.

Sec. 2.  Legislative findings

The Legislature finds:

1.  The tenth 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 Arizona certain powers as they were understood at the time that Arizona was admitted to statehood in 1912. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Arizona and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed on and adopted by Arizona and the United States in 1912.

2.  The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Arizona certain rights as they were understood at the time that Arizona was admitted to statehood in 1912. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Arizona and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed on and adopted by Arizona and the United States in 1912.

3.  The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition.

4.  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 Arizona was admitted to statehood in 1912, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Arizona and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed on and adopted by Arizona and the United States in 1912.

5.  Article II, section 26, Constitution of Arizona, clearly secures to Arizona citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Arizona citizens to keep and bear arms.  This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1912 Arizona Constitution, which was approved by Congress and the people of Arizona, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed on and adopted by Arizona and the United States in 1912.

Our State Constitution is the basis for this AND it was approved by Congress in Washington back in 1912.

Will this be challenged by the Federal Government? I'm certain of it.
Will an amendment happen? Quite possibly.

Thunder, gun sales in Arizona have not increased as much as other parts of the nation (Deep South I look at you now). But we are a bastion of the Old West mentality and will go to lengths when protecting large tracts of land that make up ranches near the border.

Addendum: A co-worker just reminded me that Montana has a similar law and it has not been contested yet by the Federal government.

[Krensky]

I'm looking at the actually act and expecting it to be challenged. It is no more sedition than it was for the several states that passed laws affecting how they would be affected by the Health Care Reform law that just passed.

Laws saying the reform don't apply are seditious until the law goes intoi effect, then become insurrection.

Also to consider, and I'm betting the grounds for the defense of the Law, was that the Federal regulations regarding the registrations of firearms were for Interstate Commerce when this is regarding Intrastate Commerce.

Am I saying they are 100% right and correct to do it? No. But I understand where it comes from and, fact of the matter, they are not waging war or firing on Federal troops or committing to an act of war. If you read the bottom of the page that the link goes to, they reference their legal findings to back up why this can exist.

That dodge has been tired before. It doesn't work. Also, sedition is the stuff leading up to insurrection. Shooting at Federal agents would be insurrection.

Our State Constitution is the basis for this AND it was approved by Congress in Washington back in 1912.

Will this be challenged by the Federal Government? I'm certain of it.
Will an amendment happen? Quite possibly.

That rationalization was tried in the lead up to the Civil War. It's pretty much the entire legal argument made by the seceding states. It didn't fly then. I doubt it will fly now.

[Desertpuma]

I'm looking at the actually act and expecting it to be challenged. It is no more sedition than it was for the several states that passed laws affecting how they would be affected by the Health Care Reform law that just passed.

Laws saying the reform don't apply are seditious until the law goes intoi effect, then become insurrection.

If a court case is in process to determine the legality of the law, can the law go into effect? If so, can it actually be enforced?

I'm not a lawyer which is why I'm asking. If the wording of the law is ambiguous enough, such as stating it affects all goods in Interstate Commerce and these are not, then it would be case at that point that will eventually end up in the Supreme Court.

I should reiterate I'm not claiming they are right or wrong merely that I understand and support my perceived reasoning as to why it was done. Knowing what has been happening regarding crime in my home state for some time combined with what has been going on politically both locally and nationally has helped produce this new law. Since it does not take effect until October, there is still time for it to be knocked around in Federal court before it gets dismissed, amendment or permitted to continue into law.

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm looking at the actually act and expecting it to be challenged. It is no more sedition than it was for the several states that passed laws affecting how they would be affected by the Health Care Reform law that just passed.

Laws saying the reform don't apply are seditious until the law goes intoi effect, then become insurrection.

Also to consider, and I'm betting the grounds for the defense of the Law, was that the Federal regulations regarding the registrations of firearms were for Interstate Commerce when this is regarding Intrastate Commerce.

Am I saying they are 100% right and correct to do it? No. But I understand where it comes from and, fact of the matter, they are not waging war or firing on Federal troops or committing to an act of war. If you read the bottom of the page that the link goes to, they reference their legal findings to back up why this can exist.

That dodge has been tired before. It doesn't work. Also, sedition is the stuff leading up to insurrection. Shooting at Federal agents would be insurrection.

Our State Constitution is the basis for this AND it was approved by Congress in Washington back in 1912.

Will this be challenged by the Federal Government? I'm certain of it.
Will an amendment happen? Quite possibly.

That rationalization was tried in the lead up to the Civil War. It's pretty much the entire legal argument made by the seceding states. It didn't fly then. I doubt it will fly now.

Though secession from the Union may or may not lead to war - the South declared war concurrently with their secession, however the island of Wiscongus (now Loud's Island, part of the State of Maine) seceded from the Union for eighty years, with their independence recognized by the Treasury, among others. (The Treasury is important however - it means that Wiscongus did not pay income tax.) They did not rejoin the Union until WWII. Vermont has the federally recognized right to secede as part of the terms under which the Independent Nation of Vermont (?!) joined the Union. How likely Vermont is to act on this freedom, however....

The Auld Grump

[ahzad]

here's a question that i'm a bit confused on in this. i was under the assumption that federal law supersedes state laws, doesn't really matter what the state says about it, federal law trumps its. that's why the medical marijuana dispensaries in CA, even though the voters, and in some case the state authorities approve, and passed laws allowing them to operate, the DEA can and still does raid and shut them down while local law enforcement has no choice but to sit on the sidelines and watch. so it seems the same thing could happen here, the ATF could fine, raid, shut down and the state authorities would have to stand by and watch it happen. only way they could stop it is if they physically interfered with the ATF, and find themselves charged for obstruction under federal laws.

[TheTSKoala]

*climbs out of the Koala Legal Tree*

First, Puma is quite correct.  It's not sedition as much as it's a political move.  States have / will / possibly already had attempted moves like with things like... Abortion, Obamacare, Fire arms (once again, deep south.. you're being pointed at), Militias, etc etc.

Can it be enforced?  Sure, until legally challenged.  Keep in mind, this thing as a fall of 2010 start date.  Lots of room for lots of gun nuts & safety dance fans to get involved.  I would expect police union vs. the ACLU vs. Capitol Hill vs. the South on this one.  The first major ATF case in the state will likely turn this bill into a mess.  (The San Fransisco 'Safe Haven' law regarding illegal aliens is the very definition of what this law will become.  A legal mess with someone dead, a family devastated and A LOT of lawyers involved.)

Keep in mind that laws are no stranger to being unconstitutional but still passed into law.  Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Legislative branch is charged with making laws... not necessarily making sure said laws are legal.

[Krensky]

From what I can tell, Muscongus island seceded in a fit of pique in the 1860s over being left off the state map. The treasury let it slide because of the Civil War and that it was twenty five families. The island didn't make a big deal of it during or after the war, and the whole thing was dropped in 1934.

As for Vermont, do you have a citation? Most of those claims are rejected out of hand, we did fight a war over whether or not you get to back out of the Union, and one of the loosing states made that same argument.

[Golden Dragon]

As for Vermont, do you have a citation? Most of those claims are rejected out of hand, we did fight a war over whether or not you get to back out of the Union, and one of the loosing states made that same argument.

I'll muck this up further: a law professor here had observed that New York, Rhode Island(?), and Virginia reserved a right to resume delegated powers in their instruments of ratification. This was why Jefferson Davis, a Virginian, was never prosecuted after the war. I'll be happy to hear confirmation or correction.

[TheTSKoala]

As for Vermont, do you have a citation? Most of those claims are rejected out of hand, we did fight a war over whether or not you get to back out of the Union, and one of the loosing states made that same argument.

I'll muck this up further: a law professor here had observed that New York, Rhode Island(?), and Virginia reserved a right to resume delegated powers in their instruments of ratification. This was why Jefferson Davis, a Virginian, was never prosecuted after the war. I'll be happy to hear confirmation or correction.

I believe it was Massachusetts, Virginia, New York and New Hampshire.  And I believe the caveat was that something to the effect that whenever the powers granted by the Constitution to the larger government were perverted or used to oppress, the aforementioned states could opt out.  It's been awhile, but I know we covered it in one of the law classes.