Anti-federal regulation gun bill proposed in Mich.

Republican state senators have introduced a bill that would exempt Michigan-made guns and ammunition from federal regulations.
AP Wire
Jan 20, 2013


Thirteen Republican senators introduced the proposed Michigan Firearms Freedom Act on Thursday. The bill's introduction came on same week that President Barack Obama laid out his extensive gun proposal, which includes reinstating the military-style assault weapon ban.

Progress Michigan said the bill was "copy and pasted from fringe Missouri legislation" and asked lawmakers to "stop introducing legislation written by radical out-of-state special interest groups."

The bill's primary sponsor is Republican Rep. Phil Parlov of St. Clair County. He introduced the same bill in 2009, but it stalled in committee under the Democratic-controlled House.


Mystic Michael

Pray tell, what is so special about Michigan-manufactured firearms that justifies their exemption from federal regulation? And exactly how is it that a group of state legislators can claim jurisdiction over federal policy anyway?



It's called the Intrastate Commerce Act...look it up! Goods that are grown, made or manufactured within a state and remain within that state cannot be subject to the authority of the federal government.

Mystic Michael

Oh. So the firearms are intended to remain within the state of Michigan, are they? Where exactly in the article does it mention that detail?


Look up the law and proposed legislation you idiot, rather than taking all your info from this small 2-3 paragraph article. The intrastate commerce act states the goods have to be manufactured and sold within the state therefore it is under state jurisdiction, hence the name intrastate. Interstate on the other hand are goods that are manufactured in one state and cross state lines to be sold, therefore under federal jurisdiction. The proposed legislation states that the firearms and ammunition are to be manufactured and sold in Michigan, thus giving Michigan jurisdiction!

Missy Hanz

It is the right time to make a difference. Gun problem in the USA is fast becoming alarming. - Donald Leon Farrow


It appears this is a rehashed bill that was first presented in 2009, and stalled under a Democratically-controlled house. Apparently, it is simply "copy and pasted" from fringe Missouri legislation.

Odd that the Massachusetts state government, as the home of the Smith and Wesson Manufacturing Co, doesn't seem to see a need for this kind of meddling overreach.

Not to beat a dead horse, but why are these guys wasting their time and our money on this stuff, when there are so many other important Michigan issues requiring time and attention?


Although I generally defer to your vast knowledge and experience on matters, you might find it interesting that this legislation, rather than being "simply 'copy and pasted' from fringe Missouri legislation" is substantially the same as legislation that has already passed in "fringe" Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Arizona, and Tennessee. It is also substantially the same as legislation introduced in "fringe" Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, New Hampshire and Alabama.

Kind of risky when you get all your information from Progress Michigan and the AP / Eh? Oh, and for your fellow travelers, if they actually read the legislation it would answer their questions about the Constitutional basis for the proposed law - apparently agreed to by a whole lot of legislators and State Attorneys General nationwide.

As always, have a nice day!


Thanks for actually providing a website to get more in-depth information on this 10th Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the commerce clause. It must be very rewarding to see such challenges to federal gun law come down the pike and to be constitutional to boot.

Oddly, there is very little information regarding this act available online, but I did stumble across some illuminating sites devoted to this subject. The research continues.

As for your declaration of deference to me, I must have been out of town.



The scary part is that none of the representatives have apparently read the US particular Article III which contains what is known as the Supremacy Clause.

Case after case, the Supreme court has rejected such state nullification laws as unconstitutional. Basically, any federal laws have been routinely upheld as supreme to state laws.

retired DOC

Why is it that the Feds want the states to enforce federal gun laws but not to enforce federal immigration laws?


these laws are similiar to the "medical marijuana" and other marijuana laws states have passed.


Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on Create a new account today to get started.