• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Suppressors No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah.. Governor signs

Z

Zevdogs

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 5, 2010
222
0
57
Utah
just like Montana suppressors and sbrs are legal with out nfas approvel

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Guns made and kept in Utah would be exempt from federal regulations under a measure passed by the Utah Legislature.

Senate Bill 11 was passed Wednesday by the Utah House 56-17. It now goes to the governor.

The proposal mirrors one Montana signed into law last year that's intended to trigger a federal court battle.

The measures would allow guns made in the respective states to be exempt from federal gun registration rules like background checks.

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

Sen. Margaret Dayton, an Orem Republican, has said her bill is part of a broader effort to send a message to Congress that the federal government is overstepping its bounds.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

Good luck with the test case on that.

Hope whoever invokes the wrath of the BATFE has a great legal defense fund. Federal Court ain't cheap.

I will anxiously await the verdict though. It may have an effect on where I retire.
wink.gif
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

Yeah what happens when the feds arrest you? The locals might won't, but the fed JBTs will.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

That will be a very interesting supreme court decision. Police Powers of the State vs. interstate commerce. Ultimetly it will come down to the composition of the Court. There is no greater power of a State than its police power or public safety. However, the Dems can't let this just slide by either. I need to get on the phone and talk my representatives here in SC into this statute.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

The point is not to make it work in one state.....if the case wins in court then it applys to every state reguarless of the federal statue unless each state makes the same regestration law.

it will give presidence to intrastate commerce and make the NFA not apply to it. it could also apply to federal tabacco taxes....not that anyone is talking about that.

but don't do anything untill the court rules as to the legality of the case. they have purpusely set up a huge legal fund to fight the fed on this but only on one case. after than we will need to see what happens.

but that is the reason that i am waiting to buy any class 3 stuff.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

Congress alone has the right to regulate interstate commerce. That is why the law only applies to guns made in that state, b/c if they cross state lines then it would immediately fall into the purview of interstate commerce regulated solely by Congress under the Constitution. However, States have the sole discretion to police themselves within their own borders, and hence the capability to regulate the manufacture of guns within their own borders to stay within their own borders.

It would be nice if it could challenge the NFA itself across the board, but that doesn't appear to be what they are doing and would be very difficult through that type of state statute. I think for this to apply to you then Texas would have to pass a similar law once upheld.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

Some of us here in WA have been told by our reps that there is similar legislation in the works here as well.

CJG
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

The feds will argue that all the metal or other components to build the gun came from across a state line. When this thing hits the courts it will certainly be interesting!
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

I guess the majority of the states still require Class III items like full auto guns to be regulated, however South Carolina is pretty much making it a free for all.
I'm not sure about other states but AZ seems reasonable
this is from the bill summary on the gov site :

· Exempts from federal law or federal regulation, including registration, any firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that:

Ø Is commercially or privately manufactured in Arizona from basic materials, and that can be manufactured without importing significant parts from out-of-state; and

Ø Remains within the state of Arizona.

I guess the ATF sent everyone in Montana that purchased a suppressor after the Montana Firearms Freedom Act was passed a letter basically saying EF your couch and that Federal Law supersedes.

AZ has a proposal to nullify the National Healthcare Bill, I'm interested to see how this pans out
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

mmmm home made non "R" dias

but seriously, interstate commerce would have to cease existance For nfa items since how do you prove such things without serial numbers?
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

They would have to be SN'd and have "Made in XXXX" engraved on them on a major metal component. I mean it would be fairly easy, if you get caught with a suppressor in TN that says Made in Alaska, or its scratched off your'e fucked.

I know for a fact that certain companies will be able to able to etch out the old state and engrave a new one in the same font and re-color. It will then be almost impossible to keep accountability
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

I listened to Alan gottlieb talk about this last night at the HGCA meeting.

The issue is overturning 75 years of legal precedent concerning the commerce clause. I hope the 2nd amendment foundation is successful in reversing the reach of the commerce clause.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deersniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah what happens when the feds arrest you? The locals might won't, but the fed JBTs will. </div></div>

This is what will happen in Wyoming :


Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

As much as I hope this happens, there is almost zero possibility of the states trumping the fed concerning interstate commerce. I think the initial supreme court ruling stems from an 1850, excuse me, 1824 Gibbons Vs Ogden, case regarding steamer traffic from new jersey to new york. The Supreme court basicly killed a monopoly held by just a few families on steamer fairs into the state.

It actually suprises the hell out of me that they won't force health insurance companies to cross state lines. Most....some southern states are effective monopolies. its crap, f%&#ing lobbists and special interest groups.

However you want stimulus, take the class 3 designation of cans. who wouldn't spend the $.

if guns kill people then this keyboard made any typos that mite exist here.

best
dgwelsh
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

Well I say if California can sell pot against the federal laws we will have our gun rights bill
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

Thats the deal the federal laws have nothing to do with interstate commerce. Tell me were the interstate part comes in play:

Made in Wyoming, Bought in Wyoming, Shot in Wyoming, Kept in Wyoming.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pechan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats the deal the federal laws have nothing to do with interstate commerce. Tell me were the interstate part comes in play:

Made in Wyoming, Bought in Wyoming, Shot in Wyoming, Kept in Wyoming.</div></div>

Thanks too logical for liberals to understand and elitest think we don't understand that, we're not even worthy to lead ourselves according to them.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

Well shucks how did they know I have bathtubs in my front yard and a still in the back..... LOL
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slimguns</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where do we donate to the legal fund???? </div></div>

Montana already has a lawsuit in progress.

Check on the status of Firearms Freedom Act

Donate Here
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: strangedays</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why hasn't Idaho jumped on this one yet? </div></div>

they're working on it
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

I knew there was a reason I was waiting. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Just FMI, who in Utah builds SBRs & suppressors?
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dgwelsh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As much as I hope this happens, there is almost zero possibility of the states trumping the fed concerning interstate commerce. I think the initial supreme court ruling stems from an 1850, excuse me, 1824 Gibbons Vs Ogden, case regarding steamer traffic from new jersey to new york. The Supreme court basicly killed a monopoly held by just a few families on steamer fairs into the state.

It actually suprises the hell out of me that they won't force health insurance companies to cross state lines. Most....some southern states are effective monopolies. its crap, f%&#ing lobbists and special interest groups.

However you want stimulus, take the class 3 designation of cans. who wouldn't spend the $.

if guns kill people then this keyboard made any typos that mite exist here.

best
dgwelsh </div></div>

That's why Montana is pursuing it as a breach of contract. By imposing the federal restrictions on firearms, in direct conflict to both the US and Montana constitutions, they violated the compact formed between Montana and the US Government when Montana was granted statehood. This is in addition to the 10th amendment arguments and the challenge to the commerce clause.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

Silencerco is in Utah ,vector arms and the maker of the am180 22cal machine gun as just from the top of my head
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

And when the Fed goes..ok, no highway money for you...it will get real interesting.

Politics are dirty, that's why you don't see many honest politicians.

wink.gif


Crossing my fingers, but it's going to cause problems in other areas where we aren't talking about durable goods.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And when the Fed goes..ok, no highway money for you...it will get real interesting.

Politics are dirty, that's why you don't see many honest politicians.

wink.gif


Crossing my fingers, but it's going to cause problems in other areas where we aren't talking about durable goods. </div></div>

So the state says OK no highway money and instead just doesn't send any money to the feds to begin with. The states collect the fed fuel tax, if they don't give it to the feds to begin with the feds have nothing to give back.

Funny thing is some people actually believe the states couldn't function without fed help. They have been indoctrinated well.

The fed gov exists because of the states, not the other way around. It's time for them to be reminded of that.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

Isn't it funny how we think the feds give us money?

Where do they get it in the first place?
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Okoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">South Dakota has similar legislation as well. </div></div>

Really? Would you happen to have the text of it?
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock63</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Okoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">South Dakota has similar legislation as well. </div></div>

Really? Would you happen to have the text of it? </div></div>

The status of the bill can be found here SB89 Text
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

I'm not real savy on this topic, but couldnt any state remove itself from the union ?

What happens in this case ?
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FYCN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not real savy on this topic, but couldnt any state remove itself from the union ?

What happens in this case ? </div></div>

The last time that happened there was a little thing called the civil war...........
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FYCN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not real savy on this topic, but couldnt any state remove itself from the union ?

What happens in this case ? </div></div>

I think only TX and VT can do this legally without a war (entered the US as sovereign nations). Now, the implications of actually trying it are pretty wild.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

I'm in NM now and would very likely jump the border into Texas if this ever happened!!! :)
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

Crap just paid my $200 tax stamp for my thundertrap! oh well this probably won't pass for a while anyways.
smile.gif
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slimguns</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm in NM now and would very likely jump the border into Texas if this ever happened!!! :) </div></div>


Well, when you get there look me up cause I'm gonna beat you to the punch!
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

This is all very cool but I have a feeling it will end very badly for whomever tries it.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pechan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Isn't it funny how we think the feds give us money?

Where do they get it in the first place? </div></div>

Right now they get it from the printing presses at the Fed. Reserve.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pechan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats the deal the federal laws have nothing to do with interstate commerce. Tell me were the interstate part comes in play:

Made in Wyoming, Bought in Wyoming, Shot in Wyoming, Kept in Wyoming. </div></div>

The Feds will state that the metals used in the suppressor were not mined and processed into usable form in the state nor were the welding materials to seal the can etc... Therefore interstate commerce applies.

That said, I hope the states win big time.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

If only this would pass in PA... not sure if there are many firearms manufacturers here since Charles Daly went out of business...
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical Rancher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FYCN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not real savy on this topic, but couldnt any state remove itself from the union ?

What happens in this case ? </div></div>

I think only TX and VT can do this legally without a war (entered the US as sovereign nations). Now, the implications of actually trying it are pretty wild. </div></div>

Actually, under the original intent and language of the Constitution, this would be a perfectly legitimate possibility. The problem is that the federal gov't would feel the loss of revenue severely, and would not like it at all. Technically then, the civil war was illegal, because the states would have had the right to leave the union at will with a majority vote. In fact, many southerners saw the war as an issue of the state's right to regulate themselves, rather than letting the federal government regulate everything. The northern citizens saw it as a war over slavery, as it was presented by the northern newspapers. However, once the South lost the war, it became quite clear that any right to secession had been removed by show of force.
Several states, Texas among them, still have reserved the right to secede. Georgia has some interesting legislation on the books challenging the legitimacy of the US government and it's increasing far-reaching powers.

Source: One (misguided) year at law school (on full scholarship) before I saw the light and became a cop.
 
Re: No need for class 3 ore 4 in Utah ..very soon

<span style="font-weight: bold">Interstate commerce.</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Stewart Vs US</span> already showed that even when a homemade gun has ZERO intent of ever crossing state lines, you are still going to jail by Federal law.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am going to get into trouble with my fellow Gun Rights Examiners today, but I have to point out the obvious for anybody who has researched the case law pertaining to the Commerce Clause. Fellow Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea and Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner Daniel White have published articles praising the Montana Firearms Freedom Act and a recent lawsuit filed in federal court to enforce it against the federal government and Attorney General Eric Holder, pictured at right. The lawsuit filed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation <span style="font-weight: bold">is an excellent fundraising tool, but it is destined to fail.</span> More importantly, the lawsuit draws money and attention away from real struggles for the right to bear arms that can actually make a difference.

The Firearms Freedom Act

The "Firearms Freedom Act" model legislation that is "sweeping the nation" <span style="font-weight: bold">is merely political grandstanding and promises something that none of the politicians supporting it are able to deliver. </span>

The promise of the Firearms Freedom Act is that firearms manufactured entirely in one state would be free from federal regulation. <span style="font-weight: bold">The promise is merely illusory</span>, as the legislation will make no difference in Montana or any other state that adopts it. <span style="font-weight: bold">The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate firearms manufactured in one state.</span>

The federal case law

In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits in California, held that the Commerce Clause did not permit Congress to regulate a machine gun manufactured purely intrastate. See U.S. v. Stewart. This had the result of making unregistered homemade machine guns legal in the Ninth Circuit if there was no state law banning them. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion, however, and remanded to the Ninth Circuit to re-evaluate its holding on the basis of Raich v. Gonzalez, which held that medical marijuana grown for home use, with no intention to engage in interstate commerce, was subject to Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. On remand, the case was reversed, since if Congress can ban homemade marijuana, there is no reason to believe that Congress cannot ban a homemade machine gun.

Applying the case law to the Montana Firearms Freedom Act

Since the Supreme Court has already declared that Congress has the power to regulate one homemade gun, <span style="font-weight: bold">it is a foregone conclusion that Congress can regulate a Montana firearms factory or dealer who sells only to Montana residents.</span> The first manufacturer, dealer, or buyer to violate federal firearms laws will be arrested by the ATF and sent to federal prison, and <span style="font-weight: bold">there is nothing that the Montana politicians who passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act can or will do to stop it.</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline">With the notable exception of New Hampshire</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold">nobody is proposing to actually do anything to stop federal agents from enforcing federal gun laws.</span>

This leaves some wondering why politicians would pass such a law if they are not willing to enforce it. The answer is clear. <span style="font-weight: bold">Posturing.</span> The Firearms Freedom Act <span style="font-weight: bold">is an easy way to claim support for the Second Amendment at election time without actually having to do anything real to support the Second Amendment.</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline">What is worrisome is that so many voters are buying what the politicians are selling.</span>

Real right to bear arms issues in Montana are being ignored

Montana arrests citizens who exercise the right to bear arms in public buildings. Montana makes it illegal for teachers to carry a firearm to defend students from a violent attack. Passing a populist law as a purely symbolic gesture is a lot easier than addressing real issues, such as why Montana does not trust its citizens to carry a gun in the same room where alcohol is served when other states do. Montana is one of extremely few states that actually declares it a crime to walk into a bank while carrying a handgun.

Conclusion

With real issues to address, the Firearms Freedom Act is nothing more than an idle distraction. Passing a do-nothing law is a lot less difficult than tackling controversial questions about when and where it is appropriate to categorically ban a basic human right. <span style="font-weight: bold">What the politicians are hoping is that they can make a purely symbolic gesture and still get away with claiming to support the right to bear arms at election time.</span>

Rumor has it that the Firearms Freedom Act is coming to Georgia. Do not let the politicians under the Gold Dome in Atlanta be distracted in 2010 from repealing Georgia's public gathering law and Georgia's extraordinarily long list of places where the right to bear arms is prohibited </div></div>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PatMiles
Texas Governor Signs Bill Making Illegal Migrant Entry from Mexico a State Crime
Replies
26
Views
801
Rookie
R
jff_stvns
2nd Amendment Preservation Act, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Sanctuary State, SB378, Texas & Missouri SB 367
Replies
71
Views
4K
Nik H
Nik H
Z
Suppressors More info in the firearms freedom act from Utah
Replies
0
Views
713
Zevdogs
Z
Top Bottom
Back