TexasCHLforum.com

I'm in OK on business this week, and listening to talk radio when a news story was disclosed...Oklahoma house and senate have both approved a bill, and are sending it to the OK Governor for signing...

The bill declares that ANY firearms and/or ammo manufactured in OK is declared to be non-regulated by federal gun regulations, since they haven't crossed state lines. See the following story...

OKLAHOMA CITY, April 21 (UPI) -- A bill exempting guns and ammunition made in Oklahoma
from federal regulation passed the state Legislature and is on its way to the governor, lawmakers say.

Proponents of the bill in Oklahoma City say the Constitution's interstate commerce clause stipulates the federal government can only regulate gun sales involving commerce across state lines, The Oklahoman reported Wednesday. Weapons manufactured and sold within a single state do not come under federal oversight, they say.

"This is our first step in standing up and doing what we should do, what we have the responsibility to do and, as a body, to stand up whenever the federal government or any other entity violates those God-given, inherent rights that we have," said state Rep. Charles Key R-Oklahoma City, the House author of the Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act, Senate Bill 1685, adding the measure would protect Second Amendment gun rights for Oklahomans.

The bill provides for the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories within the state, which would not be subject to federal laws as long as they stay in state.

Gov. Brad Henry historically has been supportive of gun rights, said Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs.

"If this bill were to pass and become law, it will make law enforcement in Oklahoma a very, very dangerous job. It's going to put weapons back on the street that have been made illegal over the years," said Rep. Paul Roan, D-Tishomingo, a retired state highway patrol trooper.

Oklahoma is not the first state to go in this direction. Montana, Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho have similar laws, The Oklahoman said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/ ... 271884646/

If there was a Confederate Battle Flag holding smiley, I would post it. For Southern Rights Hurrah! Hurrah for Oklahoma and welcome to the club. In the spirit of 1776 and in the spirit of 1836

Hmmmm . . . what gun manufacturers are in Oklahoma?

Do we see a business opportunity here?

I cannot wait to see how far these states will go in defending these laws. I don't see it ending well, even though I support the idea.

Prediction: If this ever happens in Texas, LaRue Tactical and STI will sell out their entire inventories in a week or less. Those are the two manufacturer's near me (Leander and Georgetown, respectively). What other manufacturer's are located wholly in Texas?

Texas isn't surrounded yet. There's that little state to the northeast where OC is still illegal.

LarryH wrote:Hmmmm . . . what gun manufacturers are in Oklahoma?

Do we see a business opportunity here?

not much of one. Too small of a population to make a real business grow.

Now, in Texas, it would work. I bet we could support a third manufacturer besides the two already posted.

austinrealtor wrote:Prediction: If this ever happens in Texas, LaRue Tactical and STI will sell out their entire inventories in a week or less. Those are the two manufacturer's near me (Leander and Georgetown, respectively). What other manufacturer's are located wholly in Texas?

Who is STI ?

texjames wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Prediction: If this ever happens in Texas, LaRue Tactical and STI will sell out their entire inventories in a week or less. Those are the two manufacturer's near me (Leander and Georgetown, respectively). What other manufacturer's are located wholly in Texas?

Who is STI ?

Or, who is Bond Arms in Granbury?

I've seen this stuff mentioned before. I just wonder how they are going to prevent the movement of these "special" arms and ammunition across state lines. Once purchased, what keeps them in-state? Are we going to have to have "export inspection stations" along all the state borders? Somehow it doesn't seem workable.

Also, the feds claim that any manufacture within the state affects inter-state commerce as it reduces the demand on out-of-state products. Thus EVERYTHING is regulate-able (?) by them.

What happened with the other states that have tried this? I know there was at least one other state that passed such a bill. All I remember happening was that BATFE sent letters warning people that they were still required to follow the previous regulations and if they didn't there would be consequences. Not sure what happened after that, does anyone know?

sjfcontrol wrote:I've seen this stuff mentioned before. I just wonder how they are going to prevent the movement of these "special" arms and ammunition across state lines. Once purchased, what keeps them in-state? Are we going to have to have "export inspection stations" along all the state borders? Somehow it doesn't seem workable.

Also, the feds claim that any manufacture within the state affects inter-state commerce as it reduces the demand on out-of-state products. Thus EVERYTHING is regulate-able (?) by them.

I've been wondering about this myself. If, in context, growing your own grain is illegal because it affects interstate commerce, how could this possibly withstand the SCOTUS without them overturning precedent? I expect the commerce clause is going to shut these laws down.

I know this is a poor comparison, but the situation is somewhat similar to pot legalization in California. While the State has it legal, it is still illegal under federal law. Therefore State LEO's won't do anything, but federal LEO's can still make an arrest. I'm not a pot supporter, but I do believe in States Rights, so I'm interested in how Oklahoma plans to proceed under this new law, if signed that is.

Searches can be made for: States Power Movements, 10th Amendment Movements, State Sovereignty Movements and so on. This is a long post as I understand the issue.

OK is joining a growing list of states adopting the position, correctly so, that the "Commerce Clause" to the U.S. Constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate in-state commerce. This is bigger than just guns and is a states powers issue. It is not a southern only issue either because other states are considering it too. I think the breaking point for the states was the passage of the bills extending the federal government powers even further than the already were. This will be a fight but the law is on the side of the states. The states have not exercised many of their powers because they were growing fat off of tax payer dollars the federal government has been controlling them with. Now that that money is being redirected to social programs the states will be getting less so this movement is more popular.

This is also much larger than just bolt guns and auto loaders. Depending on the state laws passed this could allow the sell of automatic and select fire guns and those short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors and so on. It opens the door for the states to create industries and improve the existing ones. It will mean much lower prices and availability of auto guns at much lower costs to police and residence. I am sure the states will have more stringent requirements for autos than pre-1934 but at least we would be able to get new guns and newer designs at lower prices than available to us now. I don't mind the Texas law controlling some aspect of these guns because we can actually change those laws with the support of the people of this state unlike the federal regulations that are all but imposable to change.

Overall, the states doing this are going to have to have a tight coalition and laws the SCOTUS can confirm as a states powers issue and not in any way controllable by the feds. That is how the nation was set up but after the Civil War the feds ran all over states powers and have continued in one way or another since. That was one reason Northern states didn’t support the war until they were promised the spoils of the southern states and control over much of the industry of the south economically. Since, northern states have been gobbled up just like the south was and some western and other independence oriented states are moving to take back their power from this bloated National government. Our system was set up so that the individual states have the power except for that they loan the Federal government which is strictly limited to that the states allow and nothing further. The National government has certain powers and the national courts were meant to decide issues between the states and individuals that involve issues across state lines like trade disputes or land disputes. That is my understanding and opinions and I could be wrong. I would like to learn of anywhere I am wrong if anyone can point me in the right direction.

Drewthetexan wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Also, the feds claim that any manufacture within the state affects inter-state commerce as it reduces the demand on out-of-state products. Thus EVERYTHING is regulate-able (?) by them.

I've been wondering about this myself. If, in context, growing your own grain is illegal because it affects interstate commerce, how could this possibly withstand the SCOTUS without them overturning precedent? I expect the commerce clause is going to shut these laws down.

I heard somewhere not too long ago (Gun Talk?) that by the time this gets to SCOTUS there will be an "emerging consensus" among the States that will make it easier to overturn the Filburn precedent. If more and more states keep passing this type of legislation, and that growing list of states keep appealing the lower courts overturning of those laws, SCOTUS would not be able to ignore it as easily as if it was just, say, Montana appealing. When that court action begins, it is hard to say, but not likely until after several more states pass it.

If you have 15-20 states (or more) who have passed nullification, and they are all pushing back on the same point (Filburn or related commerce-clause precedent), then the court cannot brush it off as a minor thing, but have to take it seriously.

Not that the Supremes ever brush off a case. Well except for Michael Newdow's no-basis suit against the Pledge of Allegiance a while back.