The North Carolina State House will hold hearings this week on HB 241 – the North Carolina Firearms Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Subcommittee A will hold hearings on the bill for discussion purposes only on this Wednesday. Grass Roots North Carolina released the following about the bill in response:
The Federal government has steadily expanded its misuse of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to the point that States Rights have become next to meaningless. It’s time to stop the cancerous growth of Federal Bureaucracy and HB 241, North Carolina Firearms Freedom Act will help begin to do this.
This important new legislation is similar to the Montana Firearms Freedom Act enacted in 2009. It will allow North Carolinians to manufacture and sell firearms and ammunition for use within our State without having to bow to and comply with onerous (and expensive) Federal restrictions.
In addition to representing an important “shot in the arm” to shooting enthusiasts within our State, this law has important implications for redeeming States Rights. This represents an important first step in restoring Federal respect of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.
This legislation is a win for freedom and needs all the support we can muster!
HB 241 will receive a hearing next week, and so we need to voice support NOW!
The full text of the bill is available here. Section 2 which contains the Declarations of Authority makes for very interesting reading. Rarely does one come across a bill in a state legislature that makes reference to the Federalist Papers!
(6)The Federalist Papers (specifically Madison #46 and Hamilton #29), as well as the entire history of the ratification of the Second Amendment, reveal that the right to bear arms was primarily intended as the sole means of defense and as a hedge against the potential tyranny of an overreaching Federal Government.
(7) According to the natural law of logic, a right intentionally enumerated in both the United States Constitution and within the North Carolina Constitution specifically and directly intended as a hedge against the potential tyranny of an overreaching Federal Government should not and cannot in any way be defined by nor regulated from the very Federal Government being so guarded.
Section 2, (7) does make sense. If the Second Amendment was designed to be a hedge against tyranny from the Federal Government, then logically the Federal Government should have no say in its definition or regulation. Unfortunately, I think it would be hard to find a U.S. Court at any level that would agree with that statement.