# NH bill puts teeth in to "out of my cold dead hands"



## Carol (Jan 21, 2010)

Live Free...and reload 



> CONCORD &#8211; Advocates for state rights and gun ownership want to require that guns made and used only in New Hampshire be free from all federal taxes and regulation.
> 
> 
> (snip)
> ...


http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/statenewengland/554043-227/bill-would-free-guns.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 21, 2010)

A few other states are considering similar legislature, reinforcing their sovereignty.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 21, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> A few other states are considering similar legislature, reinforcing their sovereignty.


 
How far do you think they'll get before the Fed marches in the troops (again)?

Anyway, good for NH! I hope more states follow suite.


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Jan 21, 2010)

My state currently has this signed sealed and delivered. So far.....nothing.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 21, 2010)

I may have to reexamine my move options.......


----------



## Skpotamus (Jan 22, 2010)

Washington, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Arizona, have all done things with state sovereignty.  I'm pretty sure montana passed theirs, but not sure about other states.  

http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/states-stand-firm.htm



The real problem lies with the career politicians who have no clue what the people want.  The people feel their rights are being violated and that they are getting pushed around by their government.  When people get pushed around too much, they hit the big reset button.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 22, 2010)

Unfortunately, the way the feds & ATF view it, if ANY part of the gun went through interstate commerce, they've got a dog in the fight.  So you'd pretty much need to mine the metal, smelt & process it, forge or cast it, combine saltpeter, carbon, and sulfur to make the powder which was mined or created in Massachusetts, and so on.

It's kind of unlikely that the feds wouldn't find an in...  

(Of course, the way the Commerce Clause has been reshaped makes Stretch Armstrong and Plastic Man to shame...)


----------



## Carol (Jan 22, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Unfortunately, the way the feds & ATF view it, if ANY part of the gun went through interstate commerce, they've got a dog in the fight.  So you'd pretty much need to mine the metal, smelt & process it, forge or cast it, combine saltpeter, carbon, and sulfur to make the powder which was mined or created in Massachusetts, and so on.
> 
> It's kind of unlikely that the feds wouldn't find an in...
> 
> (Of course, the way the Commerce Clause has been reshaped makes Stretch Armstrong and Plastic Man to shame...)



Please tell me you didn't just call us Massachusetts...

We're just hoping the feds see all the snow on the ground and mistake us for Canada :lol:

In all seriousness...this isn't a bill that is targeted towards the larger manufacturers that are involved in substantial interstate commerce.  This is geared to the custom shops that do one-offs.  Low key, a production level that is not worrisome, and for the gunmakers that gear to the serious enthusiast.  

One of the news article has said that the bill hasn't been met with much objection.  This is kind of a code word.  Up here, its not objection that stalls bills, its a lack of strong support.  Our legislature only serves part time (we don't pay 'em), so when they are in session, getting bills to the floor is a bit of a scramble.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 22, 2010)

Carol said:


> In all seriousness...this isn't a bill that is targeted towards the larger manufacturers that are involved in substantial interstate commerce.  This is geared to the custom shops that do one-offs.  Low key, a production level that is not worrisome, and for the gunmakers that gear to the serious enthusiast.



The problem is that the Commerce Clause has, as stated, been twisted until it is not recognizable.  If the local custom gun shop that does one-offs happens to order parts for their lathe from a company out-of-state, or if any of the parts on that lathe were made out-of-state, or if they bought their office toilet paper from Wal-Mart, which does business out-of-state, then the feds have stated and proved that they can stick their noses in.  No kidding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/03/abuse.html



> For most of our history, the Courts foiled congressional attempts to use the "commerce clause" to sabotage the clear meaning of the Constitution, particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  The Courts began caving in to congressional tyranny during the 1930s.  That tyranny was sealed in 1942 by a little known U.S. Supreme ruling in Wickard v. Filburn.  Mr. Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio.  The Department of Agriculture had set production quotas.  Mr. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his government allotment.  He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.  He was fined anyway.  The Court reasoned that had he not grown the extra wheat he would have had to purchase wheat; therefore, he was indirectly affecting interstate commerce.



There is lots of info out there, just Google for 'commerce clause abuse' and you'll see that the government has asserted its authority to control ANYTHING IT WANTS and claim it is due to their right under the Commerce Clause.

If they haven't hammered these one-off custom shops (yet), it is because they haven't gotten to it, haven't noticed it, or have bigger fish to fry.  They will claim that they have the right, if and when they decide to get involved.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 22, 2010)

As I've chimed in with before on similar threads about this matter, It is sad to hear that the overarching shadow of central government is still seeking to undo the crafting of your Constitution in whichever way it can .

It really is true that those in power never learn the lessons of history it seems.


----------



## Carol (Jan 22, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The problem is that the Commerce Clause has, as stated, been twisted until it is not recognizable.  If the local custom gun shop that does one-offs happens to order parts for their lathe from a company out-of-state, or if any of the parts on that lathe were made out-of-state, or if they bought their office toilet paper from Wal-Mart, which does business out-of-state, then the feds have stated and proved that they can stick their noses in.  No kidding.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
> 
> ...



Oh I believe you, and I don't like it one bit.  I guess what I'm trying to say is I think NH is thinking/hoping the mom-and-pop shops fall in the "bigger fish to fry" category


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 26, 2010)

"When the man yelled 'Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms', hell, I thought he was there to make a delivery!"

Fortunately, if enough states pass such laws, and stand by them, the ATF really doesn't have the manpower to do much........and doing anything will force a Constitutional confrontation that will end up in the US Supreme Court.........and if that is sooner, rather than later, their track record shows they'll come down on the side of the states rights.

Now, if the authoritarian left has a few years of good political climate to pack the court, things might be different.  But the same court that reviewed Heller will come to the same conclusions most of us are about the massive distortion of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

What I really suspect is that the Feds may be smart enough to want to avoid such a fight, until they have the power to win it.  It's far easier to put off the SCOTUS discussion until they have the right combination of justices to win it, than to reverse a decision already reviewed.  I don't think they want that kind of political fight right now.  Obama and the Democrats view OVERT action on the 2nd Amendment as radioactive.


----------

