Last week, I wrote about gun bills proposed in the current Indiana legislature. One such law was put forth by our own District 22 State Rep. Curt Nisly: House bill No. 1633, the Indiana Firearms Freedom Act. It provides that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that: (1) is manufactured commercially or privately in Indiana from basic materials; (2) can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state; and (3) remains within the borders of Indiana; is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce. I emailed Rep. Nisly regarding this bill. I asked, “Could you give me a brief comment on your reasoning with regard to House Bill No. 1633? I know similar bills have been passed in several states. I just wanted your take on it and how it promotes firearms freedom?” Here is his response: “House Bill 1633 would exempt both commercial and private Indiana manufacturers of firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition with parts manufactured and retained within the state from federal regulation or law, including registration. “The bill’s goal is to encourage firearm manufacturers to build and expand their operations into Indiana, thus creating employment opportunities for hard-working Hoosiers and promoting economic development. Specifically, this bill could promote job growth in our community due to the abundance of workers in North Central Indiana who possess advanced manufacturing capabilities.” I was a bit surprised by that response because I had heard a little bit about the “Firearms Freedom Act” before. It seemed to me to be a lot more about the role of the federal government than about job creation and the encouragement of gun manufacturing. Enter Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and author of the original Firearms Freedom Act. The Indiana bill introduced by Nisly is essentially a boilerplate copy of that act. Marbut wrote the act in 2004 because the federal government stood in the way of his attempt to build a .22 caliber rifle – the Montana Buckaroo. The act was signed into law in Montana in 2009. After its passage, and using the law as a basis for a lawsuit, the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation sued U.S. Attorney Eric Holder in federal district court. MSSA v. Holder challenged Holder – and the federal government’s – continued enforcement of federal gun laws. “The 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,” according to firearmsfreedomact.com. The commerce clause is found in Article I, Section 8. It says the U.S. Congress shall have power "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes." Pretty straightforward, actually. I believe the founders simply wanted the government to be an arbiter in trade disputes between states and foreign nations. There's plenty of historical evidence to support that modest interpretation. But today, the commerce clause is interpreted like this: Company A makes a product. Company A sells the product. That's commerce, so Congress can regulate Company A. Given that interpretation, the feds get to regulate virtually everything – far flung from what the founders intended, in my humble opinion. MSSA v. Holder states that Marbut “wishes to manufacture and sell small arms and small arms ammunition to customers exclusively in Montana, pursuant to the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, without complying with the National Firearms Act or the Gun Control Act, or other applicable federal laws." In 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy dismissed the suit "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim." Basically, the judge said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge federal gun laws. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, long known as one of the most liberal courts in the land. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the U.S. District Court erred in concluding the plaintiffs didn’t have standing. But the Ninth Circuit also unanimously upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit on merit. The Ninth Circuit went on to rule that Congress could regulate the manufacture of firearms within Montana because the “creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally.” Also, a majority of the Ninth Circuit – with one judge dissenting – held that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act was preempted by the federal licensing law. The plaintiffs sought to bring the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court. As part of the U.S. Supreme Court filing, Marbut released an open letter to members of the court, encouraging them to take the case. Here is a portion of it: The natives are beyond restless. They are at the stage of collecting torches and pitchforks and preparing to head for the castle gates en masse. There is plenty of evidence for this assertion. Nine states have enacted Firearms Freedom Acts, and 23 others have introduced FFA clones and may yet enact them. Other states have enacted or introduced other “Freedom Acts,” such as the Whiskey Freedom Act, the Light Bulb Freedom Act, and the Healthcare Freedom Act. But those only tell part of the story. States are passing laws prohibiting enforcement of indefinite detention under the National Defense Authorization Act, there are police agencies that have publicly declared refusal to enforce provisions of the Patriot Act(s), there are the states that have enacted various marijuana tolerance laws in defiance of federal law, and much more. These rejections of overweening federal power are happening not only at the state level, but at the county, city level, and with individual citizens. Frankly, the working people of America are fed up with an overbearing federal government bent on regulating everyone and everything. President John F. Kennedy informed us, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” MSSA v. Holder is our best, and could be the last or near last, attempt at the peaceful revolution we’d all emphatically prefer to the alternative Kennedy asserted. A year ago, the high court declined to review the case. The court’s unwillingness to take the case leaves the Ninth Circuit ruling to stand. Now, can you see why I’m puzzled by Rep. Nisly’s answer to my question? Surely he fully understands the implications of his own bill. Maybe he just didn’t want to talk about it. Either way, I think we can all agree the Indiana Firearms Freedom Act is not really about “job growth” or “employment opportunities.”
