Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont 's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .. It’s currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.

The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a precedent-setting opinion in the case of State v. Christopher William Sieyes which holds that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights "applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment"

This outstanding opinion was authored by Justice Richard B. Sanders, a Supreme Court veteran who clearly understands the history of both the state and federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps what makes the Sanders opinion so remarkable is that it places the Washington Supreme Court ahead of the United States Supreme Court in recognition that the U.S. Constitution's recognition of the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens, and should also place limits on state and local governments, as it does on Congress.

Quoting Justice Sanders, "Lower courts need not wait for the Supreme Court the Constitution is the rule of all courts both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts."

The Sanders opinion was issued February 18, 2010 and its significance quickly registered with gun rights organizations and activists across the map. For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation hailed the ruling. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane called it "a welcome development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners."

This state high court opinion, among other things, effectively "puts on notice" anti-gun groups in the Evergreen State that their continued efforts to impair the rights of legally-armed citizens will face not only growing legislative resistance, but intense legal scrutiny. Though not binding on other states, it clears a path for other state supreme courts to follow.

Despite its brevity at only 24 pages, Justice Sanders' opinion - which was co-signed by five of his colleagues, including Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen - thoroughly and proactively debunks any suggestion that the authors of Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution did not mean specifically what they wrote: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Perhaps Justice Sanders put it best when he noted, "This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice."

SEATTLE, WA – A King County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, striking down a ban on guns in city parks because it violates Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute.

Judge Catherine Shaffer ruled from the bench that the gun ban, adopted under former Mayor Greg Nickels, violates Washington’s law, which placed sole authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the State Legislature. That law was adopted in 1983 and amended in 1985, and has served as a model for similar laws across the country.

SAF and NRA were joined in the lawsuit by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Washington Arms Collectors and five individual plaintiffs.

"This is a great victory for the rule of law and Washington citizens," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "Greg Nickels was so blinded by his personal hatred for firearms owners and his own arrogance that he imagined the city under his control could simply ignore state law. That arrogance cost Nickels his job last year. We repeatedly warned him not to push a gun ban, but he refused to listen."

"It is also a victory for the Legislature," he observed, "because this case affirms the intent of lawmakers in 1983 to prevent cities like Seattle from creating a nightmare patchwork of conflicting and confusing firearms regulations. The ruling solidifies the legislature’s authority and sends a message to city and county governments to stop meddling with the rights of Washington citizens."

Gottlieb suggested a review of local ordinances may now be in order, so that city and county governments can be compelled to remove old gun regulations or face legal consequences.

"This ruling puts anti-gun local officials on notice that legally-armed citizens have rights, too," Gottlieb stated.

The United States has made its first response to a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Missoula to test the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce "among the several states." The MFFA is a states' rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds, with firearms serving as the vehicle for the challenge.

This lawsuit to validate the MFFA was brought by the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as defendant, and is referred to as MSSA v. Holder.

The first response to the lawsuit by the United States is a Motion to Dismiss, submitted January 19^th and considered to be a standard procedural maneuver in lawsuits against the U.S. government. This motion seeks to avoid the legal merits by asserting that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that a justiciable controversy does not exist, and that prevailing case law is against Plaintiffs.

MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit explained, "The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on. There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important issue from being adjudicated properly. We are now beyond that hurdle." However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to sidestep proper adjudication.

SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said, "We are disappointed but not surprised that the government would try to kill this suit on standing, rather than arguing about the merits of the case."

The MFFA concept has gained traction across the Nation since its passage in Montana. Tennessee has enacted a clone of the MFFA, and other clones have been introduced in the state legislatures of 19 other states, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Ten or more additional states are expected to introduce yet more MFFA clones in the next few weeks. (See: http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com)

The U.S.'s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support are viewable at: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/.

MSSA and SAF have assembled a litigation team for this effort consisting of three attorneys from Montana, one from New York, one from Florida and one from Arizona. Lead attorney for the Plaintiffs is Quentin Rhoades, partner the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci and Rhoades. Other interested parties from both in and out of Montana are preparing to weigh in on this issue of national interest and national importance as amicus curiae (friends of the court).

Marbut commented, "The FFA concept has created a firestorm of interest nationwide. Lots of people and other states are watching carefully to see how Montana fares in this challenge to overbearing federal authority and to Washington's attempt to control every detail of commerce in the Nation, especially including activity wholly confined within an individual state. That level of micro management certainly was not the intent of our founders when they gave Congress limited power in the Constitution to regulate commerce 'among the states'." (See: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/what-is-the-commerce-clause/).

Great news! Last month we alerted you to a superb pro-gun bill pending in the Virginia General Assembly.

HB 69 recently passed the House of Delegates overwhelmingly (70-29) and is now before the Senate's Courts of Justice Committee.

Introduced by Del. Charles Carrico (R-5) and known as the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act, HB 69 is modeled after similar legislation which has been successful in other states, including Montana -- the first state to pass such a law.

The Firearms Freedom Act has a simple concept. HB 69 states that if a gun was made in Virginia, and then stays in the Commonwealth, the federal government may not regulate it under the Interstate Commerce Clause. (Because, you see, the gun was never part of interstate commerce.)

This is important because the Commerce Clause is the "hook" that Congress has used to justify almost every single federal gun control law. But with the passage of HB 69, the Commonwealth will take a stand that guns stamped with the words "Made in Virginia" are no business of the federal government.

Date:

From:

To:

Subject: Please Support HB 380

Dear Senator Waddoups:

I support HB 380, the firearms liability bill sponsored by Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, which would protect property owners who allow concealed-weapon permit holders to carry on their property.

I encourage you to give priority to HB 380 now that it’s in the Senate.

Thanks for your support of Utahns’ right to keep and bear arms, and thanks for taking time to consider my opinion on this matter.