FLORIDA - HB 21 - Regulation of Firearms


PDA






eric.cartman
July 14, 2009, 10:21 AM
From: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=42148&SessionIndex=-1&SessionId=64&BillText=&BillNumber=&BillSponsorIndex=0&BillListIndex=0&BillStatuteText=&BillTypeIndex=0&BillReferredIndex=0&HouseChamber=B&BillSearchIndex=0

Regulation of Firearms: Creates Florida Firearms Freedom Act; provides legislative findings & definitions; provides that specified firearms, firearm accessories, & ammunition for personal use manufactured in state are not subject to federal law or regulation; provides that importation into state of specified parts & incorporation of such parts into firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in state does not subject firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation; provides that certain basic materials are not subject to federal regulation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition under interstate commerce; provides that specified firearm accessories imported into state from another state do not subject firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce; provides legislative findings with respect thereto; provides exceptions; provides applicability; requires that firearms manufactured & sold in state must bear indicia of manufacture by specified date.

W00T!!!

If you enjoyed reading about "FLORIDA - HB 21 - Regulation of Firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
divemedic
July 14, 2009, 12:42 PM
except that this law means nothing. It exempts NFA weapons.

eric.cartman
July 14, 2009, 12:54 PM
not so. supressors, sbr, sbs become deregulated in FL.

GarandOwner
July 14, 2009, 01:09 PM
Not till October 2010 :(

Uncle Mike
July 14, 2009, 01:09 PM
not so. supressors, sbr, sbs become deregulated in FL.

Better look into that...these items are federally regulated. The 'state' regulation will not override the federal regulation.

specified firearms, firearm accessories, & ammunition for personal use manufactured in state

'Specified'..... there is the catch -all.

We will give all the freedom in the world but.....but for what we 'specify'.....

We'll have to look at the 'list of specified firearms and attachments, manufactured parts, etc...' to see what is and is not allowed.

Many states have ridicules laws... you can posses titanium, and you can posses an AK hammer... but you cannot posses or import into X state a titanium AK hammer... this new bill will clear up and regulate ridicules laws such as this, in the state of Florida.

eric.cartman
July 14, 2009, 01:23 PM
Uncle Mike,
Read the bill :)
SBR, SBS, Supressors ARE regulated under commerce clause. This law states, that Fed has no authority to regulate such items, as long as they are manufactured and stay in FL. Sticking it up to the Fed basically. If this passes, it becomes legal in FL to make a suppressor etc.

CoRoMo
July 14, 2009, 01:30 PM
Won't this end up like medical marijuana?

The states free up their laws, but the fed maintains and enforces theirs until they realize that they are not acting within the national sentiment. The fed eventually scales back the enforcement to near zero, but keeps their regulations intact until the mainstream is up for changing them.

Phatty
July 14, 2009, 01:40 PM
All of these laws popping up in various states (such as Montana) are challenges to the scope of the Commerce Clause. A state cannot simply pass a law that defines the scope of the Commerce Clause, so the federal regulations will remain in force even if the Florida bill is enacted. However, the new bill lays the groundwork for a lawsuit, so that the issue can be presented to a federal judge who CAN strike down the federal regulations.

except that this law means nothing. It exempts NFA weapons.
There is a good reason for that exclusion. As I mentioned, the law is simply the beginning of a court challenge. The idea is to get a judge to rule that Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause when it enacted federal gun regulations. If the state were to include some of the scary NFA regulations in its law, the judge could get spooked and rule against the state based on his/her fear of machine guns. The better route is to keep the law as uncontroversial as possible and then establish some good precedent. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling saying that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power. THEN you can challenge some of the more controversial regulations such as machine guns while armed with the good precedent.

Phatty
July 14, 2009, 01:47 PM
Won't this end up like medical marijuana?
Yes, it would if the state tried to free itself from regulation of machine guns, because machine guns (like marijuana) still have a stigma in society.

However, some of the more ridiculous regulations (like SBR's) do not have a large public backing so a judge would be more inclined to strike it down.

everallm
July 14, 2009, 02:01 PM
CoRoMo

The medical marijuana issue failed (significantly in part) as the argument was that there would be no possible way to demonstrate and verify that marijuana had been grown solely within and for the sole use of California.

The varying states ruling in general explicitly require that firearms manufactured in the originating state be very explicitly marked as to state of origin.

MagnumDweeb
July 14, 2009, 03:48 PM
Now if we could just tell the feds to step off our rights to FA firearms. This will be interesting to see. Glad I was born in the south, although Montana probably wouldn't have been too bad either.

damien
July 14, 2009, 03:55 PM
Won't this end up like medical marijuana?

The states free up their laws, but the fed maintains and enforces theirs

I've always wondered about this too. But if the feds are getting no support from local enforcement because state law forbids them to act, it hugely complicates the enforcement of federal laws, doesn't it? The federal cops (FBI, DEA, ATF, etc.) are guys that mostly sit in offices in suits. They don't have the hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground that state, county, and city cops do all around the country.

I know a guy that prosecutes federal "felon in possession" cases. A large majority of them are referrals from local prosecutors. Without that support, it would greatly lower prosecutions.

runrabbitrun
July 14, 2009, 05:06 PM
The FEDs are our friends. :)

Not to worry, soon all firearms will be legal and the FEDS won't care.
Remember, they are our friends.

LMAO :neener:

Phatty
July 14, 2009, 05:12 PM
But if the feds are getting no support from local enforcement because state law forbids them to act, it hugely complicates the enforcement of federal laws, doesn't it?
The way the feds can get around this is by threatening to withold funds to any state that legalizes marijuana. This is how the feds bribe the states into doing all sorts of things. If any state were to lower the legal drinking age below 21, that state would lose a ton of federal funds.

damien
July 14, 2009, 07:53 PM
The way the feds can get around this is by threatening to withold funds to any state that legalizes marijuana. This is how the feds bribe the states into doing all sorts of things. If any state were to lower the legal drinking age below 21, that state would lose a ton of federal funds.

Didn't work with California. I guess they have money to throw around :)

On guns, the feds haven't been apparently threatening this on the other states that have passed similar bills. Generally, if I remember correctly, it takes an act of Congress to do this anyway - it's usually done as an amendment to an appropriations bill. It isn't that simple and the idea might well not be popular enough to pass it as a bill or even an amendment to a bill.

FlaChef
July 15, 2009, 02:34 AM
This (nearly identical anyway) has passed in Montana and is also going to soon be passing (if it hasn't already) in Texas.

Basically if I buy a gun in FL that was made in FL and will only be sold in the state then Commerce Clause will not apply (which is the basis of most federal laws when you get down to it). That means no Brady check or etc. and no stupid rules about barrel length. (so yes it will have some use and benefit, you can't just go for the jugular and say anything that is not full auto is a waste of time)

Montana started this, but it is a moot point there as the feds won't make a fuss over a few dozen cowboy reproduction guns from someones custom shop.

Texas however has STI
and Florida has Kel-Tec

Both are wholly produced in state, so under the new laws they technically shouldn't even need to go through a FFL if they are duly marked as being for in state sale.

At lest that is the idea. In reality all of these are basically a challenge to the feds and laying the ground work for a legal contest (or more, but i won't speculate down that road).

As far as the 2010 thing, it was just introduced a few days ago (July 6). I doubt it's even had it's first reading. If this thing makes it out of committee it will be a knock down drag out fight.
And if it passes someone is going to have to be a test case:what:

Dr. Fresh
July 15, 2009, 03:45 AM
I've always been of the opinion that the local LEOs should tow ATF/DEA vehicles that are enforcing NFA/drug laws in violation of state law. :D

chuckusaret
July 15, 2009, 10:44 AM
I've always been of the opinion that the local LEOs should tow ATF/DEA vehicles that are enforcing NFA/drug laws in violation of state law.
I have witnessed our local police department ticket the counties sheriff's vehicles for parking in handicapped parking spaces and also for parking on the sidewalks surrounding the county courthouse. The sheriff did ask the local chief if he had ever heard of professional courtesy, and the answer was; nope! not for a violation of the law by a sworn officer, no matter how minor..

Dodgeit
July 15, 2009, 04:45 PM
Texas I believe has the only "made here stays here law" that has any teeth. The Texas law requires the state AG with the full backing of the state to come to aid of any citizens that run afoul of the feds because of the law.

The rest are just gearing up for a court battle that will never happen, because no citizen will try it because of fear of the financial burden prosecution and felony status.

Found a tidbit here.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Texas+and+Alaska+Propose+Bills+to+Opt+Out+of+Federal+Firearms+Laws-a01073959880

This bill exempts from federal regulation firearms, accessories and ammunition made in the state of Texas intended for sale within Texas. This bill requires the State of Texas to pay for the defense of the Texas citizens if prosecuted by the Fed for firearms violations that this bill allows for. This means the State of Texas would throw the book at the Fed with a barrage of lawyers and seek a ruling that was favorable. It is really impossible for Texas to lose unless the Federal judges throw the case illegally.

Dr. Fresh
July 15, 2009, 05:44 PM
I have witnessed our local police department ticket the counties sheriff's vehicles for parking in handicapped parking spaces and also for parking on the sidewalks surrounding the county courthouse. The sheriff did ask the local chief if he had ever heard of professional courtesy, and the answer was; nope! not for a violation of the law by a sworn officer, no matter how minor..

That is hilarious. I'd be willing to bet the DEA and ATF park illegally all the time.

JohnMcD348
July 15, 2009, 10:43 PM
I'm already starting my shopping list for Knights Armament.:evil:

A PDW
Mk11Mod0
Masterkey
QDSS-NT4

oh the list goes on forever.......

Oh to dream the impossible dream. :)

AKElroy
July 15, 2009, 10:48 PM
All of these laws popping up in various states (such as Montana) are challenges to the scope of the Commerce Clause. A state cannot simply pass a law that defines the scope of the Commerce Clause, so the federal regulations will remain in force even if the Florida bill is enacted. However, the new bill lays the groundwork for a lawsuit, so that the issue can be presented to a federal judge who CAN strike down the federal regulations.

I think this is right. I am no lawyer, but the Supreme Court will not likely tackle a case with sweaping 10th amendment implications unless several states devise and/or open the door to these type of challenges.

There must be a significant legal need for the issue to to be picked up by the high court, and I doubt the Montana challenge alone would do it. We should all be involved in getting our State legislators on board with similar bills. The states-rights implications could be enormous, and potentially far more reaching than RKBA issues.

If you enjoyed reading about "FLORIDA - HB 21 - Regulation of Firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!