South Carolina To Nullify Federal gun Regulations?

From Third Palmetto Republic:

Dec 29, 2010 (yesterday)SC to nullify Federal gun regulations?from Third Palmetto Republic by MichaelTweetThe backlash against Federal tyranny is spreading. SC’s Senator Bright is proposing what amounts to nullification of Federal gun regulations (which obviously violate the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment of the Constitution).




State Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, has prefiled legislation that would make a firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is commercially or privately manufactured in South Carolina and does not leave this state exempt from federal regulation, including registration.



The “South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act” cites the 10th Amendment, which gives states rights not granted to the federal government in the Constitution. The bill stipulates that the federal government doesn’t have the right to regulate such items that do not leave the state under the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.



Here is part of the problem we face. Many people believe that the Constitution gives them rights. The 10th Amendment doesn’t give the States rights – it reserves their rights. The powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution are delegated from the States, which derive their authority from their people. This is what has been largely lost in the Constitutional debate since 1865.



The bill is modeled after an effort in Montana that became law there in October, but has since been overturned by a federal judge. That decision is under appeal.



Ah! Imagine you had a dispute with your neighbour and the dispute went to court – a court where the judge was a member of your neighbour’s family. Why would you ever submit yourself before such a court? This is precisely the situation the States and people face today. We can expect to consistently lose appeals against Federal power in Federal courts. Until we are willing to defy Federal courts we might as well just quit complaining.



“If the gun is made here and used here, I don’t know how the Commerce Clause can regulate it … The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, but it doesn’t limit rights,” Bright said. “There’s a lot of bills challenging federal authority, not just from me, but from other legislators around the country.”




Senator Bright is right about the growing resistance to Washington, DC. The problem is that Federal courts (which have an incentive for maintaining Federal authority considering that they are part of the Federal Government) will ultimately decide whether SC can take such an action or not – just as they did in the case of the similar law in Montana. How long until the States, localities or even individuals begin ignoring Federal court decisions and Federal mandates? Those who are willing to do this have to understand the likely consequences (which will almost certainly initially involve a denial of Federal money) and stand their ground regardless. How much do we value our liberty?