Posts Tagged ‘states rights’

Can Feds Bulldoze State Constitutional Protections?

L to R Nick Dranias, attorney for Goldwater Institute; Gary Marbut; Quentin Rhoades, attorney for Marbut, MSSA

In a courtroom gun fight that has the potential to disrupt many of Barack Obama’s plans for national gun lists, laws and limits, attorneys have told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the U.S. Constitution does not give Washington unlimited authority to bulldoze over state efforts to protect the constitutional rights of their citizens.

At issue is the years-old Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which was argued before the appeals court in a special session in Portland, Ore.

The law simply says firearms made, sold and kept in Montana are not subject to federal interstate commerce regulations.

Attorney Nick Dranias, who represented the amicus parties of the Goldwater Institute and others in the arguments, said the case should be returned to the lower court for discovery and development of evidence, because it is a case of first impression and the lower courts dismissed it without that opportunity.

He asked the judges to remember that the federal government was created by the states and that the states granted certain limited powers to the federal government. Where those rights were not granted to Washington, the states’ people retain all rights….


Armed and Ready: New Mexico Residents Defy Federal Government

December 5, 2011 Leave a comment

Here’s another encouraging article about the surging Sovereignty movement! 

We, The People have HAD ENOUGH!   I’ve recently posted articles HERE HERE  , HERE , and HERE about the Sheriff’s First Movement and Sheriff Mack’s organization, County Sheriff Project


Armed and Ready: New Mexico Residents Defy Government


…….If there were more sheriffs like those in New Mexico serving around the country, we would be well on the way to safeguarding our liberties against Washington’s “invasions of the public liberty.” It also might occur to the Congress that more examples of sheriffs interposing themselves might result in shrinking down the federal government to do little more than just funding the national defense.





Medical Marijuana, Firearms, 10th Amendment and Montana…

October 13, 2011 Leave a comment

Feds: States Have No Rights
By Chuck Baldwin
October 13, 2011

Archived column:

In a recent column appearing on, Kurt Nimmo succinctly
and correctly pointed out that the federal government’s usurpation
of State sovereignty, jurisdiction, and authority is worsening. The
current case in point is the recent open letter to all firearms
dealers by the ATF. Nimmo begins, “In its continuing effort to pare
down the number of Americans who can exercise their rights under the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms has sent a letter to firearms dealers informing them that
medical patients ‘addicted’ to legally dispensed medical marijuana
have no right to own and possess firearms.

“According to Arthur Herbert, Assistant Director of Enforcement
Programs and Services at the ATF, ‘any person who uses or is
addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has
passed legislation authorizing marijuana use of medicinal purposes, is
an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled substance, and is
prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition’
and will be compelled to admit the prescribed use of medical marijuana
on ATF forms at the point of purchase.”

Nimmo goes on to point out, “More significantly, the ATF’s move
to deny cancer and other patients medical marijuana is part of a
larger attempt to roll back the Second Amendment by color of law and
also attack states’ rights as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.”

And it’s not just medical marijuana and cancer patients that the
ATF–and its water boys in Congress–wants to deny Second Amendment
rights to. As has been previously reported, many of our nation’s
veterans are also on the “hit list” as not eligible to keep and
bear arms.

See the report at:

Beyond that, any person who has been diagnosed with a “mental
disorder” is also in the cross hairs for having their Second
Amendment rights expunged. And, of course, “mental disorder” could
include anyone from a returning combat veteran who suffers from
“post-traumatic stress disorder,” or “combat fatigue,” to
someone who was prescribed medication for Attention Deficit Disorder
(ADD) as a child, to someone who was diagnosed as suffering from
bipolar disorder. In other words, the federal government wants the
power to classify just about anyone it wants to as having a “mental
disorder” and, therefore, be denied their right to keep and bear

But there is even more. Nimmo writes, “In 2009, Democrat and
notorious gun-grabber Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced The No Fly, No
Buy Act (H.R. 2401), a bill that would have merged the TSA’s no-fly
list with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS), a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase
a firearm.

“The current mayor of Chicago–the largest anti-Second Amendment
city in the country after New York City–and former Obama Chief of
Staff Rahm Emmanuel proposed that anybody on the fed’s no-fly list
(numbering in the tens of thousands) should have their Second
Amendment stripped.”

Of course, if having one’s name on the no-fly list makes one a
terrorist, why wasn’t former senator Ted Kennedy so identified? It
is a matter of public record that he was detained several times by TSA
agents, because his name kept showing up on the no-fly list.

Nimmo concludes his column by saying, “The feds are determined to
whittle away at the Second Amendment and this under-handed effort to
make gun dealers responsible for determining if their customers are
marijuana ‘addicts’–under penalty of losing their licenses–is
part of the long term plan to disarm the American people.”

See Nimmo’s column at:

This draconian decision by the ATF hits people in my home State of
Montana especially hard. Under the laws of the State of Montana, a
person is lawfully allowed to receive prescribed amounts of medical
marijuana for legitimate health reasons (I know many of these people
personally). And contrary to what anyone inside the Beltway says,
marijuana in medicinal amounts has been proven to greatly assist
people who suffer from a variety of maladies. Furthermore, the misuse
of alcohol–which is also known to help treat a variety of illnesses
in medicinal amounts, which even the Holy Scripture collaborates in I
Timothy 5:23–inflicts far greater havoc upon both the individual user
and society in general than marijuana has or could ever inflict.

It is also true that the so-called “war on drugs” by the federal
government is not only an abject failure, it has become a tool by
which power-hungry despot-wannabes strip hundreds of thousands of
harmless, peaceful Americans of their freedoms and liberties. There
are tens of thousands of people languishing behind prison walls that
have never harmed a single person, have never stolen, have never
committed an act of violence, or have never even shown the slightest
aggression toward a fellow human being. They languish for decades and
even for a lifetime in harsh prison conditions because of this
never-ending, always escalating “war on drugs.”

Talk about a financial cost to taxpayers: the cost of incarcerating
tens and hundreds of thousands of harmless, nonviolent drug users–not
to mention the cost of investigating, arresting, arraigning, and
trying them–literally dwarfs whatever the cost would be to let them
live peacefully in society, or even to allow churches and
special-needs ministries and hospitals to treat them.

But a few things the “war on drugs” does accomplish is it serves
as a major reason to increase federal funding for all kinds of
Gestapo-like tactics at every level of government; it provides
justification for governmental restrictions of civil liberties; and it
is a major excuse for the exponential growth of the emerging police
state. And dare I even mention the fact that it is now absolutely
certain that persons (at the highest levels) and agencies within the
federal government have been (and are) reaping gargantuan profits via
illegal drug trafficking. As one retired federal agent (that’s
right, federal agent) who was personally involved in the feds’
“war on drugs” for decades personally told me, “Chuck, the
federal government hates competition.” (I’m not making it up;
that’s what he said.) Oh yes! It also allows the ATF to deny Second
Amendment rights to more and more people!

America desperately needs State governors to draw a line in the sand
against this federal leviathan for the protection of the liberties and
freedoms of the citizens within his or her State! Let me say it
bluntly: we desperately need a State governors to tell the feds to go
to Hades! If State leaders would stop cooperating with and submitting
to these would-be tyrants, I am convinced the people of the states
would rally behind them in record numbers and speed! I am absolutely
convinced that this would be the case in the Mountain States anyway.
And when the feds attempt to withhold federal tax dollars from these
courageous, albeit recalcitrant states, it needs to be remembered that
the states can do likewise. They can withhold tax revenues from the
feds: two can play that game! All it would take would be a plucky
governor with enough backbone to do it!

In the meantime, combat veterans, people who have taken certain
prescription drugs, people who have shown up on no-fly lists, and now
people who have been lawfully issued a particular medical card can be
denied their right to keep and bear arms by the US government. When
will the American people ever have enough?

P.S. I think it fitting at this juncture to remind readers that one
of the reasons so many pastors and Christians offer so little
resistance to the unconstitutional conduct of our civil magistrates in
Washington, D.C., is because of the erroneous and fallacious
interpretation of Romans chapter 13. Let me remind everyone that I
have a four-part message series on “The True Meaning of Romans 13”
available on one DVD. I strongly encourage readers to obtain this DVD
and to distribute it as widely as possible. I am convinced that the
correct interpretation of Romans 13 could literally change the course
and direction of our country! To obtain a copy of this Romans 13 DVD,
go to:

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be
made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

� Chuck Baldwin


Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and
pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America
was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution
Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See
Chuck’s complete bio at:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:

Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied
intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for
permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview with Chuck should contact

Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address
is P.O. Box 10, Kila, MT 59920. When responding, please include your name,
city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be
added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck’s web site at

States and Guns…. 10th Amendment?

February 24, 2010 Leave a comment

The New York Times reports today that fear of tighter gun regulations by the Obama administration has driven several states to loosen firearm regulations. The states’ actions may be motivated in part by concern for protecting Second Amendment rights, but they appear to be legislative efforts (not mandates by the courts).

At the same time, several states are considering some version of the Firearms Freedom Act–state legislation that declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause, in effect nullifying such legislation. Montana and Tennessee have already passed a version of this, and a dozen or so other states are considering it.

The FFA may be a bold political statement, but like so many other, similar nullification efforts that we’ve seen recently (and historically), it will have no constitutional effect. That aside, the FFA appears to ignore the well established rule that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Firearms manufactured and retained within a single state certainly could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and Congress could ensure this through its fact-finding and by adding a “jurisdictional hook” to any federal legislation (as it did in the wake of Lopez to the Gun Free School Zone Act,18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(q)).

The FFA makes another constitutional mistake. According to the FFA web-site, “[t]he FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object–it is a state’s rights exercise.”

Whatever the FFA is, it most certainly is not a “Tenth Amendment challenge.” Nothing in the text or history of the Tenth Amendment (or the Supreme Court’s post-1995 Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases) suggests that the Tenth Amendment limits the powers of Congress or gives rights to states. It simply reserves powers to the states that aren’t given to the federal government.

The core question–and the real thrust of the FFA–is whether Congress has power to regulate this items under the Commerce Clause. This may (or may not) be an interesting issue, but it has little to do with the Tenth Amendment.

Original Article Can Be Found Here:

%d bloggers like this: