The Tenth Amendment Initiative


New member
The Tenth Amendment Initiative
AKA: State Sovereignty Movement
AKA: Firearm Freedom Act

As of the time of this writing there are two known States that have declared or reaffirmed State Sovereignty under the authority of at least the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution…
And had their Governors sign it into law...

Alaska and Tennessee...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I adamantly believe this Initiative is a noble step in the right direction for this Country…

Although, I must emphatically emphasize that some of the States are off to a terrible start and are defeating the entire intent of The Tenth Amendment Initiative…

We must stress to our Representatives and those in the other states, and anybody involved in pushing for this initiative that four things must not be allowed:
1.Compromise one iota that the Federal or State Government or another municipality or Court has any authority to place limits on the Second Amendment…
2.Concede that the Federal Government has any Supreme power over a State Government.
3.That the Second Amendment is anything but a Unalienable, Unconditional, Fundamental, Pre-Existing Right, regardless of class, type of firearm or weapon; regardless of zip code; regardless of open or concealed carry; that belongs to all U.S. Citizens.
4. That the States do not have a right to Secede.

The most egregiously fundamentally flawed Bills/Resolutions I have found to date are:
a.After declaring the Federal Government has no authority to impose firearm laws, regulation, etc., or Infringements of the Second Amendment on its citizens, it hypocritically enumerates numerous exceptions to its own declarations…
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

1.a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

2.a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

3.ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

4.a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

a.Basically a copy of Montana’s or vice-versa…
SECTION 6. Section 5 of this act shall not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one (1) person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one half (1 ½) inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) A firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

A great site to get going proactively on is:
Tenth Amendment Center|Working to limit the power of the federal government

American Thinker Blog: '10th Amendment Movement' gaining steam in states

Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state

I have written my Texas and Florida state reps regarding this matter. Florida email attached below... the Texas email can be found here.

Thanks and credit to Link Removed and Link Removed for some of the content I used in my emails. :)

It has recently come to my attention that Florida is considering a memorial introduced by State Senator Carey Baker (R-Eustis) that urges “Congress to honor the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and United States Supreme Court case law which limit the scope and exercise of federal power.”

I wanted to write and share my support for this resolution that affirms the tenth amendment’s provision that rights not expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

A number of states have considered similar resolutions, including Montana. Montana considered the Montana Firearms Freedom Act legislation earlier this summer.

However, Montana’s attempt to lay claim to State sovereignty under the tenth amendment via the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, at the same time infringed 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 Florida (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 any such resolution or legislation similar to the Montana Firearms Freedom Act that would ultimately infringe upon our second amendment rights.

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 Florida will follow suit and exert her tenth amendment powers of state sovereignty. Please support the state sovereignty resolution introduced by Senator Baker.

It is also my hope that Florida will steer clear of any sort of legislative verbiage that would prohibit and infringe upon the second amendment rights granted to all Americans.


New member
Obama’s Imperial Decree: Target Oklahoma

Posted on 06 August 2009
by Bryce Shonka
Remember the good old days, when one only had to watch out for the Federal Government’s twisted interpretation of the commerce clause to justify tyranny?
Well those days seem to be long gone. The Obama Administration has been employing an old tactic lately – what some might call an imperial threat – and they’re not doing it overseas, either.
The state of Oklahoma is now the target of a direct challenge from US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as justification to violate Oklahoma’s sovereignty as affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
In a letter written to the State Attorney General in April, the Federal government used aggressive language, bringing up the possibility of withholding Federal funds appropriated for Oklahoma. The reason? A proposed amendment to the State Constitution, which requires voter approval, that would make English the official language of the State.
“What it indicates is the Federal Government’s contempt for the states, in this case Oklahoma, and for the idea of federal — as opposed to national — government. AG Holder believes that Oklahoma is an administrative subdivision of the USA, and that it is perfectly right for him to coerce Oklahomans to do his will. Who cares whether he has ever been to Oklahoma, met an Oklahoman, or thought about Oklahoma?” said Link Removed, an American historian and New York Times bestselling author.
Oklahoma is not alone as a state challenged by central authority in recent months. Recently, federal firearms licensees in Tennessee and Montana received a letter from another Federal agency, the ATF, who had also issued a decree wrought with hubris - claims by the Federal government of their legal supremacy across the land.
“Both of these letters, particularly this letter to the Attorney General of Oklahoma, are very officious,” observed Rob Natelson, professor of law at the University of Montana. “It reminds one eerily of the kinds of communications that started to come out from the Emperor to the local cities of the Roman Empire, beginning the course of the ultimate destruction of local government.”
Professor Natelson is a widely-recognized expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, and on several occasions, he has been the first to uncover key background facts about the Constitution’s meaning. I knew this before our conversation. What I didn’t know, however, was that he’s also been studying Roman Law and history for the past 50 years, and is responsible for Link Removed in that field.
“During the 2nd century AD, the Roman Emperors began increasingly to interfere with local government and they did this with…letters…letters that look something like this,” continued Natelson, indicating the letter from Holder to Oklahoma. “They started out as almost advisory and they got increasingly peremptory. By the end of the 2nd century, there was very little local government left. You had very few people, therefore, willing to participate in local elections; very little patriotic spirit towards one’s own province or city. And this was the harbinger for the ultimate centralization of the Roman Empire.”
He continued with a strong, decisive tone, “Almost everyone who’s studied in that area agrees that the effect was to sap the life out of the empire, so that everything flowed to the center. All that counted was the Emperor and his bureaucrats…and his courtiers. I look at this and I see this letter which gets close to looking like an order from the central government down to a sovereign state legislature, and I say…WOW. This looks like something that Septimius Severus would have sent to the local officials.”
In Columbus, Ohio last weekend, a rally in support of State Sovereignty drew around 7,000 people. Judge Andrew Napolitano addressed the rally and made similar comments indicating the nature of our current point in US history.
“In the long history of the world, very few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger. This is that moment and you are that generation”
Are these men ‘crying wolf’?
“Some people might think that’s a far fetched analogy but I can’t emphasize enough how important this development is seen by historians. When people think of the collapse of the Roman Empire they think of the fall of Rome in 476 AD. The conversion of Rome from a relatively free state - almost a Federation - into a totalitarian state, really picked up speed and accelerated during the 2nd century [AD], with this increasing intermeddling by the central authorities in local state government. That’s what it reminded me of,” recalled Natelson.
“[The DOJ] are not violating any law by sending these letters, but there’s a change in tone, there’s a new and disturbing tone in them. At least the ATF letter was addressed to individuals. This one is addressed to a state legislature - really, it’s a bit much. Besides the fact that there’s the tone, there’s the fact that they sent the letters at all. Most of the letters that were sent out by the emperor were called rescripts, and that’s almost what [the letter from Holder] looks like. The one difference is that a rescript was usually a reply to a request for advice. In some ways this is worse than a rescript because this is unsolicited. A better way to compare it would be to an imperial constitutio - an imperial decision or decree.” Natelson added.
His Roman analogy is worth considering, for several reasons. Rome may have ended up a brutal dictatorship, but it began through a series of treaties between regions, and in some ways parallels present day America.
“When you draw comparisons between the U.S. and ancient Rome, you have to be very cautious, though Rome does have lessons to offer us and the history and results of the relentless centralization of the Empire is one of them,” Natelson continued.
If there’s a case to be made that the US is headed for the same sort of central plan that sucks the life out of a Republic, it would be difficult to imagine who in the United States could be encouraged by such a trend, outside of DC’s beltway.
“Certainly state legislators in Oklahoma and congressmen from Oklahoma should put the Federal Government on notice that they will support a substantial reduction in the budget for Holder’s portion of the federal bureaucracy so long as he is trying to coerce them in this way.” recommended Gutzman.
Worldwide trends in recent political elections do exhibit signs of a move away from central planner candidates, a trend the United States has been contrary to for nearly a decade, but perhaps the pendulum has reversed itself.
“As the economy grows increasingly complicated, increasingly interdependent and increasingly technological, centralized control (which never worked very well) works less and less, and people are less willing to stand for it. This reflects a visceral gut reaction people have against centralized control, because they know from their own life it makes no sense, though it always takes time for those mega-trends to filter into the political class,” Natelson continued. “Eventually, when a mule gets hit over the head enough times it figures out what’s going on, and eventually the politicians will figure out what’s going on, too.”
People in the US are coming together by the thousands, demanding decentralization and nullification of Federal powers. Never before have the political elites had to contend with a non-partisan political force on such a massive scale. A storm seems to be brewing; a maelstrom of everyday Americans rallying around the document designed to keep the government in fear of the people - instead of the other way around.

Tenth Amendment Center|Working to limit the power of the federal government

Write Your Federal, State, Local and other Municipality representatives...

Link Removed

Second Amendment Foundation Online


New member
I just came across some potentially troubling challenges for the Tenth Amendment Initiative...
AKA: Firearms Freedom Act(s), State Sovereignty Act(s), etc...

In thinking about how the Federal Government, BATFE, IRS, Congress, Executive Branch etc., could potentially overturn/overrule a Tenth Amendment Challenge by they States; I started doing some research on whether other parts of the Constitution had been previously used to over rule the 10th Amendment or in other words giving the Federal Government the last word on a given issue...

Which is basically, when there is a conflict between a State Law or Constitution and A Federal Law, the Fed Wins...

One of my threads of research was along the lines of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution vs. the Tenth Amendment...

It appears that we may have already lost this battle before its started, after reading the previous precedents on this...

Make no mistake, I want to be wrong on this...

Supremacy Clause Versus the Tenth Amendment:
Supremacy Clause Versus the Tenth Amendment - United States Constitution

Fourteenth Amendment:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tenth Amendment:

Supremacy Clause:
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is some pretty troubling stuff, I am hoping by providing this info, it will stimulate some credible counter arguments...

Tenth Amendment Center|Working to limit the power of the federal government

Link Removed

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Tenth Amendment -- Table of Contents


New member
Step Up For Arizona

Former Governor Gary Johnson: States' Rights Should be Encouraged in Arizona
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force"
--Thomas Jefferson

Rewriting History
by Brion McClanahan
(read more and comment here)

A Response to Ian Millhiser's Diatribe on "Tentherism" at the Center for American Progress.

How many ways can progressives distort and rewrite history?

If you read a recent piece entitled "Doomed to Repeat History" by policy analyst Ian Millhiser at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress the answer would be countless. His inaccuracies, partisan propaganda, scare tactics, and mistruths scream for a response. Of course, the statist zombies who sop up progressive talking points will probably view Millhiser’s work as the trump card against "tentherism," but that is the principal problem.

Millhiser has no idea what he is talking about (surprise!). He does not understand the objectives of the Tenth Amendment movement and his definition of "tentherism" is hardly accurate. Perhaps he doesn’t care, since demonizing those who support liberty and limited central government is what progressives do best, but Millhiser obviously needs an elementary lesson on the Tenth Amendment and American history in general.

Millhiser begins his piece by stating that "conservatives are over-reading the Tenth Amendment." This must not be allowed to happen, he contends, because "Tentherism is dangerous," "Tentherism has no basis in constitutional text or history," and "Tentherism is authoritarian." The first charge smacks of a statement Duke Law School professor Neil Siegel made in March when he called nullification "lawlessness." From the evidence, it appears Duke Law School graduates and professors (Millhiser received his J.D. from Duke) are well versed in statist propaganda but don’t have a clue about the ratification of the Constitution or the original intent of the Tenth Amendment. The first and third can be refuted in tandem, but the second is where Millhiser ignores much of early American history and cherry picks individuals and events to fit his "tentherism" paradigm.
(click here to read the article now)


New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest member