Alaska passes state's right's bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nice!

The wife and I just got job offers to work in Valdez, AK.....We are thinking about moving there. This might be a great thing for me! I am going to have to do some research on this.
 
an I now manufacture a full auto as long as it stay's in state?
Click to expand...

From Alaskan law standpoint yes, and the law allows the State of Alaska to defend you in your Federal criminal trial. The US DoJ says these laws hold no water so.....

Someone has to go first.....

Full Text
 
From Alaskan law standpoint yes, and the law allows the State of Alaska to defend you in your Federal criminal trial. The US DoJ says these laws hold no water so.....

Someone has to go first
Click to expand...
Thanks for that link. I have a feeling it will be tested here. I can think of a number of high profile attorney's that would love to take this on Pro Bono.
 
:eek:
The wife and I just got job offers to work in Valdez, AK.....We are thinking about moving there. This might be a great thing for me! I am going to have to do some research on this.
Click to expand...
Valdez is not bad if you don't mind 1000 inch's of snow in the winter:eek:
The fishing however is fantastic.
 
The way I read it, this does not mean you can manufacturer full auto firearms for yourself or for anyone not legally able to possess a fully automatic firearm.

(a) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured
24 commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to
25 federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the
26 United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not
27 traveled in interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

The way I read this, it simply means that the government cannot regulate the firearm as it pertains to interstate commerce.

So I would expect that the same rules, laws, FFL, etc., etc. still apply to the ownership and manufacturing of automatic weapons and I would think non-automatic firearms as well.

Basically, unless you have the FFL to make/sell or are purchasing an automatic made before 1986 and pay the tax for it, I don't see that this changes anything for automatic firearm ownership.


If someone can explain how this allows for the fabrication of fully automatic firearms by regular folks without the licenses/restrictions, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I'd certainly error on the side of caution before venturing into waters that could bring the BATF to your door. Call some government people, ask or email Tom Gresham on GunTalk Radio, get something in writing, etc. etc.
 
I'd certainly error on the side of caution before venturing into waters that could bring the BATF to your door. Call some government people, ask or email Tom Gresham on GunTalk Radio, get something in writing, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

No need to call anyone. The Department of Justice has already put out an opinion letter that they will prosecute anyone for violating any Federal gun laws, regardless of these. That was for the Montana version of this law, but I'm sure they will hold the same opinion for others.

This is like the 7th one of these, though some specifically exclude full auto.

The practical application of these laws remains to be seen.
 
If the material that is used to create the firearm comes from outside Alaska, then it's not made in Alaska. Interstate commerce is in play to ship the steel used in the firearm, right?:confused:

That's probably the way the ATF is going to look at it. Ask the closest FFL holder if they are going to start "manufacturing" full auto weapons as a result of this.
 
AlaskaMan said:
If the material that is used to create the firearm comes from outside Alaska, then it's not made in Alaska. Interstate commerce is in play to ship the steel used in the firearm, right?:confused:

That's probably the way the ATF is going to look at it. Ask the closest FFL holder if they are going to start "manufacturing" full auto weapons as a result of this.
Click to expand...

Not as I understand the bill. Seems like it outlines that very concern quite well:

This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that
29 is manufactured in this state from basic materials and that can be manufactured
30 without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and
31 insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are
01 not firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into this state
02 and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in
03 this state does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal
04 regulation. Basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not
05 firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional
06 authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition under interstate
07 commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. The
08 authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic
09 materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and
10 ammunition made in this state from those materials. Firearm accessories that are
11 imported into this state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as
12 being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under
13 interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm
14 in this state.
Click to expand...
 
If Alaska law governed Class III firearms and if the Alaska Constitution had a commerce clause, and if Alaska got to interpret federal law, this would be important. But it doesn't, and it doesn't, and it doesn't.

It's window dressing of no significance whatsoever. It does nothing to make full auto firearms more or less legal. If the legislators in Juneau wanted to do something useful, they could mandate that all state and local LEO's sign off on all NFA paperwork. They could open a state range for full auto. But they'd rather pass this idiotic bit of nonsense because they think most of us are too stupid to realize it means NOTHING.

Let me make this perfectly clear. Our legislature does not get to interpret or modify FEDERAL LAW. Nor do they get to tell FEDERAL COURTS how to interpret the US CONSTITUTION. The state can pass whatever decree it wants, but it means absolutely nothing. If you rely on Juneau and build an illegal full auto, you will be going to federal prison.

Not as I understand the bill. Seems like it outlines that very concern quite well:
Click to expand...

Which would be great if the NFA was an Alaska law and the legislature had some authority to modify it. But it doesn't. So this has no more meaning than Alaska passing a law adopting Vermont carry for the UK.

I tell everyone here, as an officer of the courts for the state of Alaska, do not expect this law to help you in a federal prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Boba Fett said:
The way I read it, this does not mean you can manufacturer full auto firearms for yourself or for anyone not legally able to possess a fully automatic firearm.



The way I read this, it simply means that the government cannot regulate the firearm as it pertains to interstate commerce.

So I would expect that the same rules, laws, FFL, etc., etc. still apply to the ownership and manufacturing of automatic weapons and I would think non-automatic firearms as well.

Basically, unless you have the FFL to make/sell or are purchasing an automatic made before 1986 and pay the tax for it, I don't see that this changes anything for automatic firearm ownership.


If someone can explain how this allows for the fabrication of fully automatic firearms by regular folks without the licenses/restrictions, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I'd certainly error on the side of caution before venturing into waters that could bring the BATF to your door. Call some government people, ask or email Tom Gresham on GunTalk Radio, get something in writing, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
I spoke with Mike Kelly about this some months ago.

Now the issue with FFL's is that they are required (by agreement) to follow federal regulation to maintain their license, so this has minimal impact on them. So you would not need an FFL or register the firearm for the manufacture of any rifle, handgun, accessory(silencer etc.), or ammunition, indeed if you do own a type 7 FFL SOT 2, you cannot manufacture any firearm outside of the ATF regulations, so this bill has no effect on FFL's of any kind, since they're bound by the ATF regulations if they want to maintain their license and likely freedom.

Hypothetically if you are just some normal Joe and have a machine shop you could manufacture from basic materials an M-16, and according to the bill you can have it, keep it, sell it to an Alaskan resident without needing a $200 tax stamp, as long as it is stamped with "Made in Alaska" however it does not necessarily require a serial number.

That said it's looking at the bill in isolation, and not accounting for the Federales wanting to maintain control. Which as TR rightly states there is already a statement from the DOJ about what my hypothetical paragraph would lead to. You may be defended by the SAG if this happens however.
 
Hypothetically if you are just some normal Joe and have a machine shop you could manufacture from basic materials an M-16, and according to the bill you can have it, keep it, sell it to an Alaskan resident without needing a $200 tax stamp, as long as it is stamped with "Made in Alaska" however it does not necessarily require a serial number.
Click to expand...

No, wrong. Totally wrong. Ticket to federal prison wrong. VERY WRONG. DANGEROUSLY WRONG! The law does not provide any protection from federal law because Alaska cannot override federal law. It's a very basic principle of the federalist system we operate under.

Please don't try this!

If some clown in Juneau really thinks he's going to override Supremacy on 10th amendment grounds, LET HIM BE THE TEST CASE! Heck, half of them should be in federal prison anyway. A bunch already are!
 
Last edited:
Cosmoline said:
No, wrong. Totally wrong. Ticket to federal prison wrong. VERY WRONG. DANGEROUSLY WRONG! The law does not provide any protection from federal law because Alaska cannot override federal law. It's a very basic principle of the federalist system we operate under.

Please don't try this!

If some clown in Juneau really thinks he's going to override Supremacy on 10th amendment grounds, LET HIM BE THE TEST CASE! Heck, half of them should be in federal prison anyway. A bunch already are!
Click to expand...
Not according to CSHB 186.

However I'm not an idiot, so I won't be doing this. hence why I mentioned hypothetically, since there is no real basis to assume that the 10th amendment can override congressional responsibility for interstate commerce. Until there is a precendent set on any of these bills from any of the states that have passed them we will not know whether federal control of firearms trumps state or vice versa.

I'm not 100% onboard with window dressing, since if enough states pass laws like this then perhaps the Federal Government will actually pay attention.
 
I wonder how far the feds would get inforcing their gun laws if every time they showed up in town to try there was NO cooperation of any kind from state and local officials and if the tires on their cars all got flattened when they parked anywhere in town!
 
I'm thinking this has parallels with marijuana laws. Alaska has legal recreational marijuana - you can grow it, smoke it, possess it on your property, whatever, and no state or city cop can or will hassle you. However, that doesn't mean the DEA won't come storming in and kick down your door, shoot your pets, destroy your home and terrorize you if they get a tip you're growing marijuana.

The pothead in question may be perfectly correct in claiming his 10th Amendment rights were being violated, but he's still going to jail.

I'm sure not going to test the NFA laws by building a full auto weapon.
 
"I wonder how far the feds would get inforcing their gun laws if every time they showed up in town to try there was NO cooperation of any kind from state and local officials and if the tires on their cars all got flattened when they parked anywhere in town!"

Exactly, it would be no different than when the U.S. Marshal Service would attempt to retrieve escaped blacks under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Often times the Marshals would enter a town or city and be mobbed, assaulted or killed outright. More often no one would render them any meaningful assistance and when they did capture a runaway slave there were often jailbreaks. Did people go to jail for helping slaves reach Canada? Certainly. Were people injured or killed fighting the Marshals? Yes. Ultimately, however, the Fugitive Slave Act became unenforceable in large parts of the U.S.

The Federal government is only mighty insofar as it can exert extreme pressure (read: armed force) over a miniscule area. The Marshals service and the FBI are by no means large. Compared to a single family, yes. Compared to a town, yes but to a much lesser extent. Compared to any municipal body of any stature, absolutely not. If Alaska and its population were to make life very difficult through passive resistance federal attempts to enforce firearms laws would be nullified. How are Marshals going to successfully investigate and arrest "criminals" if no one will rent them a room, if they have to search and search for someone to provide them with a meal and if they are ignored or obstructed by most everyone they meet? The answer is: they won't and they can't. Resistance of this type practiced on anything approaching a wide scale would present an enormous obstacle to the enforcement of the law. And, after all, when the case goes before a court, all it takes is 1 juror to nullify.

Active resistance is hardly worth mentioning. If an entire town of say, 1000 people, were to refuse to turn over one of their number in a rural area it would take the Army or Marine Corps. to pry them loose. The backlash from such a move would be cataclysmic. The U.S. Army could barely keep a lid on Iraq with over 120,000 troops and Iraq is roughly the size of Texas. The ATF, and most other federal agencies, rely on terror to achieve their ends. They count on citizens being cowed by the thought of their finances being ruined, their house burned to the ground, their body imprisoned or their life terminated. If enough people decide to put aside their fear and disobey the game ends.
 
I'm not 100% onboard with window dressing, since if enough states pass laws like this then perhaps the Federal Government will actually pay attention.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind it, except that good people may be led into felonies as pawns in some state vs. fed turf battle. If the states wanted to help machine gun owners, there's a long list of things they could be doing. Heck, states could not only set up ranges for full autos, they could encourage and support machine gun clubs.

As far as state cooperation, they don't really need it to enforce the NFA and assorted regs. Most Alaskans don't have Class III firearms, and those who do are not the type to start a big battle with the feds.
 
BlayGlock said:
I am aware that this is an old thread. However, has anything ever come of this?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that the first person in one of the states that have passed these laws who builds an NFA weapon and becomes involved with the Feds over it will not be the subject of several threads per day here when it occurs?
 
There is nothing in the bill (or any of these bills that I am aware of) that claims the state will prevent federal LE from arresting a person who violates federal laws nor that the state will prevent a federal court from prosecuting a person who violates federal laws nor that the state will break a person out of federal prison after they are arrested, convicted and incarcerated for violating a federal law.

Your state may not approve of your being arrested, tried and punished for violating certain federal laws but they don't have any way to prevent all that from happening if you violate federal law.

Cosmoline is exactly correct. These states right's "laws" mean nothing.
 
It's all show.

The biggest pro to it: If anyone does manufacture an NFA firearm, the state-level police won't be able to do anything about it, until the feds find out.

The laws started up with states' anger at the feds. If enough states pass it, and get their senators and congressmen and judges behind it, it may bring about some reform to federal law--the F-squad can't enforce all federal law without the states' doing a lot of it for them. Enough states passing it would show the support to a reform to any of the rare politicians that aren't blind.

On a more practical note, it is an extra layer of defense in the books, and perhaps a future most obvious bargaining point. If the next governor that comes in is anti, they still have to get rid of this law before they can start in on the others, and the NRA or voters may give this up before letting them limit magazine capacity, or outlaw hollowpoints.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top