Utah senate approves giving the feds the finger


Basically what this says is that since all federal gun laws are based on a very tortured reading of the interstate commerce clause, if a gun is built in Utah and stays in Utah, it doesn’t fall under federal jurisdiction. Ergo, non of the federal laws apply, only state laws.

Montana was the first state to do this.  Most of the red states are considering something similar.

This is a very good thing. States are starting to stand up against the federal leviathan. 

If you live in Utah contact your reps and let them know how you feel.

Bringing them up right
The State of the Union

18 thoughts on “Utah senate approves giving the feds the finger”

  1. Even if it doesn’t work, it’s a good statement on sovereignty from the states to the Fed.

    The BATFEces are gibbering nuts and posting denials. It could seriously cramp their operations.

    I think they’re looking at it wrong. That means they can hang out and look for stuff that DOES cross state lines.

    Of course, if the courts decide it’s legal to relocate with them…

  2. I was hoping that this would get through. I salute our Senators who stood up for the rights of the state. Now, if we can just get them to look at other things as such.

  3. Good for them. The feds might just try to do their own thing, as they do with drug laws, but this should make it harder if they don’t have any local cooperation. I’d like to see my state do the same, but I am not holding my breath.

    1. Do you know details? I know the Montana law explicitly carved out a negative exemption for machine guns. Does the Utah law do the same thing?

      (What is this strange obsession legislatures have with money wasters like that, anyway?)

  4. Apparently Utah’s bill is a mirror of Montana’s bill, so it does exclude machineguns.

    119 (1) This chapter applies to a firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm accessory,
    120 or ammunition that is manufactured in the state to remain in the state from basic materials that
    121 can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into the state.
    122 (2) This chapter does not apply to:
    123 (a) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
    124 (b) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1-1/2 inches and that uses smokeless
    125 powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
    126 (c) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger
    127 or other firing device, other than a shotgun; or
    128 (d) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy
    129 after the projectile leaves the firearm.

    1. > 126 (c) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of > the trigger
      > 127 or other firing device, other than a shotgun;

      Maybe I’m confused, but wouldn’t that apply to any firearm that can take snakeshot ammunition? I suppose you could interpret those firearms as shotguns, but I think most people would find the idea of a .22lr being legally considered a shotgun pretty odd.

      1. I believe that in order for it to be considered a shotgun under federal law it has to be a smoothbore. Anything with a rifled barrel over .50 caliber is a destructive device, for example.

        Now, how one earth shotguns with rifled barrels get around this is beyond me.

      2. I think it is a very poorly worded attempt at excluding machine guns from the bill. However, the good news is that it excepts shotguns from the exclusions, so no federal regulations on shotguns, right? I wonder how much of a market there would be for Abominations in UT.

      3. @Nightcrawler:

        “I believe that in order for it to be considered a shotgun under federal law it has to be a smoothbore.”

        Yeah, I guessed there would be something like that, which means that it could be interpreted as “(2) This chapter does not apply to …” anything in .22lr or any other non-smoothbore that has snakeshot ammunition available.


        Heh, I hadn’t thought of the fact that it would mean full-auto shotguns where not covered by Federal laws any longer. 🙂

  5. Great!

    Nice to see other states doing the same thing. I’m glad Montana passed it…Now just seeing what happens.

    We all know it will lose in a FEDERAL court (Gee…wonder who they’re gonna side with?), but I’d like to see (Doubtful though) the states continue to go by the rule.

  6. And all this tortured federal reasoning stems from one friggin’ case involving wheat production limits in WWII. . .

    Thank you, FDR and your Kulak Kollectivization plan.

  7. What firearms manufacturers are in Utah, Larry? I’m all for this being passed, but in my state of WV, I’m fairly certain it wouldn’t matter since I’m not aware of any firearms manufacturers here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.