3rd State Declares Sovereignty From BATFE

[CathyInBlue]

Originally Posted by melloyello

I read somewhere that it is not illegal to manufacture a firearm in SC under two conditions: it is not made for resale (personal use only) and you are permitted to own a firearm.

Well, I wasn't really considering private use firearms manufacturing. I was considering at least boutique manufacturing, or even small-scale industrial manufacturing, explicitly for sale to the public. Of course, ... now I am.

That BATFE document is geared toward the pitfalls of assembling a firearm from pre-made parts, especially imported parts. What are the pitfalls of assembling a firearm from billet and plate stock that you cut, mill, and lathe yourself? A truly hand-made firearm? What are the BATFE restrictions on that?

I've tried to find info on private gun making in Indiana and failed. Would I be kosher in milling all the parts, assembling, and firing something like a rotary barrelled 5.56 mm? A sort of mini-mini-gun? As long as I didn't have the intent in my heart at the time of manufacture to sell it or distribute it? Could a non-FFL holder do that?

I found this year old thread over at a forum called The High Road.org:

Can I manufacture my own GUN ??? - THR

[Bohemian]

Originally Posted by CathyInBlue

Well, I wasn't really considering private use firearms manufacturing. I was considering at least boutique manufacturing, or even small-scale industrial manufacturing, explicitly for sale to the public. Of course, ... now I am.

That BATFE document is geared toward the pitfalls of assembling a firearm from pre-made parts, especially imported parts. What are the pitfalls of assembling a firearm from billet and plate stock that you cut, mill, and lathe yourself? A truly hand-made firearm? What are the BATFE restrictions on that?

I've tried to find info on private gun making in Indiana and failed. Would I be kosher in milling all the parts, assembling, and firing something like a rotary barreled 5.56 mm? A sort of mini-mini-gun? As long as I didn't have the intent in my heart at the time of manufacture to sell it or distribute it? Could a non-FFL holder do that?

I found this year old thread over at a forum called The High Road.org:

Can I manufacture my own GUN ??? - THR

there is some misinformation on the THR link...

basically, under current federal/batfe infringements of the second amendment...

you can assemble rifles, handguns and the like and transfer them if the base frame/receiver has the BATFE Licensed U.S. Manufacturer's unique serial number on it...
And you are as currently defined, under current federal and state, county, city and other municipality where you reside legally able to possess said firearm...

IF you manufacturer it in its entirety, it must be uniquely engraved with your name and some unique serial number identifier; and you can NEVER, transfer it to ANYBODY, not even your own family...

And you can only manufacturer rifles, muzzle loaders and pistols only, no fully automatic's period, without a special, very expensive license, that only allows you to retain said firearm as long as your license is current...
These licenses are more then most people pay in property taxes on 1/2 million dollar houses...

To manufacture firearms from scratch for resale you must have a Federal Firearms Manufacturer's License, combined with a FFL that will allow you to sell, transfer, etc...
These licenses give the BATFE carte blanche to randomly inspect your manufacturing facility for violations that they deem appropriate at the time, regardless of whether it is currently documented...
They further can and will impose draconian fines for paper work errors such as typo's, misspellings, etc...
Further, these licenses are typically, annually renewable, and you need different ones and or combination's of licenses to manufacturer pistols, rifles, muzzle loaders, etc...
There is no one fits all, in addition, unless you anticipate being able to sell thousands plus every year, the licenses will be cost prohibitive...

[Bohemian]

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN ROCKS!


Palin Signs Alaska Sovereignty Resolution

Monday 13 July 2009


By Michael Boldin

On Friday, July 10th, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27 (HJR27), sponsored by State Rep. Mike Kelly. The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”
The House passed the resolution by a vote of 37-0 (3 not voting) and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.
Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass similar resolutions - Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Louisiana - Alaska joins Tennessee as the second to have such a resolution signed by the Governor...

Continued...

Palin Signs Alaska Sovereignty Resolution|Tenth Amendment Center

Work on your states 10th amendment initiative...

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

[matthewaynelson]

Thanks all for the information... I know I'm coming late to the party by a few months... but, I have emailed my Texas and Florida State reps (Florida is presently considering legislation regarding the tenth amendment). Texas email attached below... the Florida email can be found here.

It has recently come to my attention that Texas was considering legislation that was based on the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. I wanted to write and share my concerns with using this particular piece of legislation.

The Montana attempt to lay claim to State sovereignty under the tenth amendment via the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, is at the same time infringing on the inalienable rights of all Americans granted under the second amendment.

The problem with the Montana bill has to do with the following flawed verbiage limiting the class of firearm a citizen can own. That verbiage is as follows:

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
...
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device
...

I am all for the State of Texas (and every State in the Union) exercising their individual State sovereignty granted under the tenth amendment. Just not at the expense of the second amendment! The second amendment does not say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" except if your zip code is x, your standing at y or the type/class of firearm you have or desire to have is z.

The Montana Firearms Act would set a dangerous precedence suggesting the State has the right to infringe upon second amendment rights of an individual of that State by defining which class of arms one can bear. If the State can prohibit class 3 arms, what would stop an attempt by the State to prohibit ALL class weapons?

The second amendment gives all Americans the right to bear arms and neither the Federal nor a State government has the authority to infringe upon those rights. Americans second amendment rights to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

If the Montana Bill is passed and later upheld by the Supreme Court, it would basically give the State the right to regulate firearms in any way it sees fit.

I strongly urge you to reject the use of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. Further, I would encourage the Texas legislature to consider using instead the verbiage detailed in the Alaska Sovereignty Resolution.

On Friday, July 10th, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27 (HJR27), sponsored by State Rep. Mike Kelly. The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

This bill was unanimously passed by the Alaskan House and Senate. Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass similar resolutions—Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Louisiana—Alaska joins Tennessee as the second to have such a resolution signed by the Governor.

It is my hope that Texas will follow suit and exert her tenth amendment powers of state sovereignty. BUT, it is also my hope that Texas will steer clear of any sort of legislative verbiage that would prohibit and infringe upon the second amendment rights granted to all Americans.

Credit to Bo and Utim for some of the content I used in my email. Thanks! :)

[utimmer43]

It certainly clearly articulates the point you are trying to make. Well done.

[Bohemian]

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe 1789

What was the straw that broke the Colonists backs?

When the British tried to take their cannons away, under the guise of farmers have no need for a cannon or large quantities of firearms and powder and balls...

Marked the beginning of the Revolutionary War at Lexington...
What a travesty, that the State that started it all, now has Second Amendments, second only to the Republic of Kalifornia...

Why is the Cannon on the Texas "Come And Take It" Flag" ?

The answer to both is the same... the unalienable right to defend oneself from a Tyrannical government, or any threat foreign or domestic by any means necessary, any place, any time...

Battles of Lexington and Concord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The founding fathers were very, clear, concise in the first 12 Amendments... something that can not be said for the reconstruction and forward amendments... 13th forward...