Dozens of states are considering laws to legally ban the individual insurance mandate that lies at the heart of President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system.

Many states have complained that ObamaCare infringes on states’ rights under the U.S. Constitution, because it requires residents to purchase healthcare insurance.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), at least 36 state legislatures are now using the legislative process “to limit, alter, or oppose selected state or federal actions, including single-payer provisions and mandates that would require purchase of insurance.”

Twenty-six states have proposed amendments to their state constitutions that would ban the individual mandate requirement. Thirteen other states are moving to block the individual mandate by altering state statutes rather than amending their state constitutions, the NCSL reports.

Many legal scholars assume federal law would automatically overrule any state-level legislation. But other scholars say that would not necessarily occur in the case of healthcare reform, because there is no precedent for regulating interstate commerce that isn’t already taking place.

The whole basis of the individual mandate – the federal requirement in ObamaCare that all citizens either carry insurance or be subject to stiff tax penalties that would be administered by the Internal Revenue Service — is that individuals aren’t engaging in a transaction that the federal government seeks to require.

“If you can do that under the premise it has some ethereal impact on the economy, then at that point what would prevent the federal government from requiring any purchase?” asks Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

Alt says requiring an insurance purchase goes far beyond the federal government’s current role of regulating interstate commerce. Alt believes the individual mandate authority is such a broad directive that there is a good chance a legal challenge – which would actually come from the individual citizens affected rather than from the states themselves – would succeed.

“I think that case would be extraordinarily strong,” Alt tells Newsmax, “again, because of the reach by Congress with regard to this mandate. We use the term unprecedented lightly in many cases. But in this case, it truly is. You cannot point to a single precedent that would be this bold and far-reaching.”
If Alt is right, it means that even as congressional Republicans battle against Democrats’ over the proposed overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system, yet another engagement is waiting for Democrats at the state level.

Under current healthcare reform proposals, according to Republicans, the IRS would be given authority to conduct audits to verify that citizens obtain adequate health insurance.

Two states, Idaho and the commonwealth of Virginia, have already enacted legislation to thwart ObamaCare. “In general the measures seek to make or keep health insurance optional, and allow people to purchase any type of coverage they may choose,” the NCSL Web site states.

The new Virginia law states: “No resident of this Commonwealth, regardless of whether he has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his employer, or a plan sponsored by the Commonwealth or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this Commonwealth liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage.”

Such language obviously sets up a constitutional confrontation with the federal government, should the ObamaCare plan squeak through Congress and be signed into law by the president.

The Idaho law, similarly, protects the individual’s right to choose whether they want insurance coverage. It also directs the state’s attorney general to sue the federal government if it enacts legislation requiring Idaho residents to purchase healthcare insurance.

Two other states, Utah and Arizona, have also passed the legislation.
The measure in Utah is awaiting the governor’s signature. It would prohibit any agency of the state from implementing any part of federal health care reform without the state legislature “specifically authorizing the state’s compliance or participation in, federal health care reform,” according to the NCSL.

The Arizona measure orders that “no law or rule shall compel any person or employer to participate in any health care system.” It has passed both houses of the Arizona legislature, but cannot become law until citizens approve it. It will be on the ballot in the November 2010 elections.

Many states do not allow a constitutional amendment to appear on the ballot until the legislature approves the measure two years consecutively. Those states might have to wait until 2012 to enact a mandate prohibition.

According to the bipartisan NCSL association, as of March the states filing formal resolutions or bills include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Alt says that states mulling anti-mandate legislation are sending a strong message to their Democratic representatives “that their constituents back home may not be on board with this measure.”

One powerful force now pushing states to adopt anti-mandate provisions: the nascent tea party movement.

“We’re 100 percent behind it and promoting it and pushing our state representatives to pass laws to protect our rights,” Everett Wilkinson, a member of the national leadership council of Tea Party Patriots, tells Newsmax.

“All rights not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the people and to the states,” he says. “So we are saying healthcare is not defined as a right in the Constitution.

“We can decide on a state-by-state basis whether we want to abide by [a mandate] or not, because it’s a state’s rights issue,” he says. “It’s not a federal rights issue, because it’s not enumerated in the federal Constitution.”

The proposed measure aimed to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and banned punishment for those without health insurance.

Backers of such measures were opposed to President Barack Obama’s new health care plans. The measure did not advocate a particular plan but measure advocates said the measure would “protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions.” Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars said the proposals were mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and had little chance of succeeding in court over the long run.

On May 4, 2010 the Missouri State Senate voted 26-8 in favor of referring the proposed measure to the ballot. On May 11 the House gave final approval to refer the measure to the ballot following a 108-47 vote.

Although similar measures were scheduled to appear on other 2010 statewide ballots, Missouri’s Proposition C marked the first time voters had a say on blocking the federal government’s 2010 health care reform.

A “yes” vote was a vote to amend current Missouri law to deny the government authority to “penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.” A “no” vote was a vote to reject the proposed referendum.

Reports out of Missouri predicted a low turnout of voters on August 3, as there were no television advertisements or debates on the matter in the low-key campaign. The Missouri Secretary of State expected a voter turnout of 24 percent.

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

[TRULY AGREED TO AND FINALLY PASSED]

SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR

SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

HOUSE BILL NO. 1764

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

4419S.05T                                                            2010

To repeal section 375.1175, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to insurance, with a referendum clause.

Section A. Section 375.1175, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 1.330 and 375.1175, to read as follows:

1.330. 1. No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.

2. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required by law or rule to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required by law or rule to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

3. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.

4. This section does not:

(1) Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;

(2) Affect which health care services are permitted by law;

(3) Prohibit care provided under workers’ compensation as provided under state law;

(4) Affect laws or regulations in effect as of January 1, 2010;

(5) Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

5. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:

(1) “Compel”, any penalties or fines;

(2) “Direct payment or pay directly”, payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying for any portion of the service;

(3) “Health care system”, any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants;

(4) “Lawful health care services”, any health-related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or businesses otherwise permitted to offer such services; and

(5) “Penalties or fines”, any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.

375.1175. 1. The director may petition the court for an order directing him to liquidate a domestic insurer or an alien insurer domiciled in this state on the basis:

(1) Of any ground for an order of rehabilitation as specified in section 375.1165, whether or not there has been a prior order directing the rehabilitation of the insurer;

(2) That the insurer is insolvent;

(3) That the insurer is in such condition that the further transaction of business would be hazardous, financially or otherwise, to its policyholders, its creditors or the public;

(4) That the insurer is found to be in such condition after examination that it could not meet the requirements for incorporation and authorization specified in the law under which it was incorporated or is doing business; or

(5) That the insurer has ceased to transact the business of insurance for a period of one year.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a domestic insurer organized as a stock insurance company may voluntarily dissolve and liquidate as a corporation under sections 351.462 to 351.482, provided that:

(1) The director, in his or her sole discretion, approves the articles of dissolution prior to filing such articles with the secretary of state. In determining whether to approve or disapprove the articles of dissolution, the director shall consider, among other factors, whether:

(a) The insurer’s annual financial statements filed with the director show no written insurance premiums for five years; and

(b) The insurer has demonstrated that all policyholder claims have been satisfied or have been transferred to another insurer in a transaction approved by the director; and

(c) An examination of the insurer pursuant to sections 374.202 to 374.207 has been completed within the last five years; and

(2) The domestic insurer files with the secretary of state a copy of the director’s approval, certified by the director, along with articles of dissolution as provided in section 351.462 or 351.468.

Section B. This act is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state for approval or rejection at an election which is hereby ordered and which shall be held and conducted on Tuesday next following the first Monday in August, 2010, pursuant to the laws and constitutional provisions of this state for the submission of referendum measures by the general assembly, and this act shall become effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon at such election and not otherwise.

Section C. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the general assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of this act to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of this act shall be as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:

●           Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?

●           Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?”.

Published: March 16, 2010, NY Times

Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican, signed a bill into law on Friday declaring that the federal regulation of firearms is invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota.

On Thursday, Wyoming’s governor, Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, signed a similar bill for that state. The same day, Oklahoma’s House of Representatives approved a resolution that Oklahomans should be able to vote on a state constitutional amendment allowing them to opt out of the federal health care overhaul.

In Utah, lawmakers embraced states’ rights with a vengeance in the final days of the legislative session last week. One measure said Congress and the federal government could not carry out health care reform, not in Utah anyway, without approval of the Legislature. Another bill declared state authority to take federal lands under the eminent domain process. A resolution asserted the “inviolable sovereignty of the State of Utah under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”

Some legal scholars say the new states’ rights drive has more smoke than fire, but for lawmakers, just taking a stand can be important enough.

“Who is the sovereign, the state or the federal government?” said State Representative Chris N. Herrod, a Republican from Provo, Utah, and leader of the 30-member Patrick Henry Caucus, which formed last year and led the assault on federal legal barricades in the session that ended Thursday.

Alabama, Tennessee and Washington are considering bills or constitutional amendments that would assert local police powers to be supreme over the federal authority, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, a research and advocacy group based in Los Angeles. And Utah, again not to be outdone, passed a bill last week that says federal law enforcement authority, even on federal lands, can be limited by the state.

“There’s a tsunami of interest in states’ rights and resistance to an overbearing federal government; that’s what all these measures indicate,” said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which led the drive last year for one of the first “firearms freedoms,” laws like the ones signed last week in South Dakota and Wyoming.

In most cases, conservative anxiety over federal authority is fueling the impulse, with the Tea Party movement or its members in the backdrop or forefront. Mr. Herrod in Utah said that he had spoken at Tea Party rallies, for example, but that his efforts, and those of the Patrick Henry Caucus, were not directly connected to the Tea Partiers.

And in some cases, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, the politics of states’ rights are veering left. Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, for example — none of them known as conservative bastions — are considering bills that would authorize, or require, governors to recall or take control of National Guard troops, asserting that federal calls to active duty have exceeded federal authority.

“Everything we’ve tried to keep the federal government confined to rational limits has been a failure, an utter, unrelenting failure — so why not try something else?” said Thomas E. Woods Jr., a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a nonprofit group in Auburn, Ala., that researches what it calls “the scholarship of liberty.”

Mr. Woods, who has a Ph.D. in history, and has written widely on states’ rights and nullification — the argument that says states can sometimes trump or disregard federal law — said he was not sure where the dots between states’ rights and politics connected. But he and others say that whatever it is, something politically powerful is brewing under the statehouse domes.

Other scholars say the state efforts, if pursued in the courts, would face formidable roadblocks. Article 6 of the Constitution says federal authority outranks state authority, and on that bedrock of federalist principle rests centuries of back and forth that states have mostly lost, notably the desegregation of schools in the 1950s and ’60s.

“Article 6 says that that federal law is supreme and that if there’s a conflict, federal law prevails,” said Prof. Ruthann Robson, who teaches constitutional law at the City University of New York School of Law. “It’s pretty difficult to imagine a way in which a state could prevail on many of these.”

And while some efforts do seem headed for a direct conflict with federal laws or the Constitution, others are premised on the idea that federal courts have misinterpreted the Constitution in the federal government’s favor.

A lawsuit filed last year by the Montana Shooting Sports Association after the state’s “firearms freedom” law took effect, for example, does not say that the federal government has no authority to regulate guns, but that courts have misconstrued interstate commerce regulations.

National monuments and medical marijuana, of all things, play a role as well.

Mr. Herrod in Utah said that after an internal memorandum from the United States Department of the Interior was made public last month, discussing sites around the country potentially suitable for federal protection as national monuments — including two sites in Utah — support for all kinds of statements against federal authority gained steam.

And at the Tenth Amendment Center, the group’s founder, Michael Boldin, said he thought states that had bucked federal authority over the last decade by legalizing medical marijuana, even as federal law held all marijuana use and possession to be illegal, had set the template in some ways for the effort now. And those states, Mr. Boldin said, were essentially validated in their efforts last fall when the Justice Department said it would no longer make medical marijuana a priority in the states were it was legal. Nullification, he said, was shown to work.

Whether the political impulse of states’ rights and nullification will become a direct political fault line in the national elections this fall is uncertain, said Mr. Woods of the von Mises institute.

But in Utah, at least, a key indicator is coming much sooner. The party caucuses to determine, among other things, whether candidates will face primary elections, are to be held next Tuesday, and Mr. Herrod said the states rights’ crowd would attend and push for change.

“Those politicians who don’t understand that things are different are in big trouble because a few people showing up to caucus can have a big influence,” Mr. Herrod said.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican — who signed a firearms law like South Dakota’s last month declaring exemption from federal regulation for guns made and used within the state — said Mr. Herbert was still studying the new batch of bills passed this week and had not yet made decisions about signing them.

Salls, an accomplished musician, purchased the winning ticket an hour before the 11:00 pm drawing January 29th at a packed Granite Town Tavern.  Many raffle ticket holders sampled the Tavern’s various libations and pub menu items while enjoying the evening entertainment of rock and blues guitarist Gary Lopez.

Although Malcolm and his wife are looking forward to their weekend at Waterville Valley Ski Resort and their stay at he Golden Eagle Lodge (two-day lift tickets are included),  Malcolm admitted that he has never skied before! “I never won anything before now, either” said Salls after hearing his winning number announced.

Congratulations,  Malcolm!

You are cordially invited to the RINO Safari event scheduled for Thursday,  Feb 18, 2010 beginning at 6:00 pm at the Manchester Firing Line, Manchester, NH.

While speaking to a large crowd of over a thousand people on the campus of Arizona State University last December, Congressman Ron Paul mentioned one thing that might come about as the result of the federal government habitually ignoring the Constitution: Nullification.

About five minutes into the video segment which you’ll find below, he said, “There’s not much attention paid to the Constitution in Washington. There’s not much attention paid to it by our executive branch of government. And we don’t get much protection from our courts. So one thing that might finally happen from this if the people finally feel so frustrated that they can’t get the results out of Washington — They’re going to start thinking about options. They might start thinking about nullification and a few things like that.”

As someone who attended that rally and was doing my best to represent my state’s chapter of The Tenth Amendment Center, I know I cheered very loudly and was very pleased when the rest of the crowd applauded enthusiastically.

For anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president, Thomas Jefferson, when he authored what came to be called the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deemed unconstitutional.

James Madison wrote a similar resolution for Virginia that same year, in which he asserted that whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state’s legislature is duty bound to interpose its power to prevent the federal government from victimizing its people. Very similar to Jefferson’s concept of nullification, Madison’s doctrine of interposition differed in some small but important ways.

These two documents together came to be known as The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (or Resolves), of 1798. Both were written in response to the dreaded Alien and Sedition Acts, and the phrase, “Principles of ‘98″ became shorthand for nullification and / or interposition. Over time, “The Principles of ‘98″ would be invoked by many other states, many times for a variety of issues.

Getting back to Ron Paul’s speech in December at ASU, Congressman Paul qualified his prediction about the revival of nullification by saying the following:

“But my suspicion is that there will never be official nullification or secession, but if the [federal] government continues to fail, and they can’t deliver anything..checks bounce..that we will be forced to take care of ourselves. And we will be forced to almost ignore everything they do.”

Less than a week after the speech I attended at ASU, Congressman Paul was interviewed by Mike Church on his radio show. When Mike asked him what his thoughts were on nullification, Ron Paul responded by saying:

“I think it’s a great idea. It was never really successful in our history. But I think it’s going to grow in importance. And I think it’s going to grow because the government, the federal government will be seen as inept and ineffective. And I think it’ll almost be de facto in the sense that the states will eventually just ignore some of the mandates.”

Here I would like to pause for a moment and point out that I am not usually in the business of disagreeing with Congressman Ron Paul. I would hardly need one hand to count the number of times that I have actually disagreed with him on any issue of real substance. I am a great admirer and supporter of Congressman Paul, who is undoubtedly very supportive of the idea of state nullification, even if he has doubted its efficacy in the past. However, in spite of all this, I would like to make two observations.

First, nullification has, in fact, been somewhat successful in the past and more recently as well. Second, as President Obama loves to say, “Let me be clear”: “Official” nullification has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Before I explain why “official” nullification has already happened, let me briefly give some examples of what nullification is NOT.

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

Nullification carries with it the force of state law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the US Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court. It is the people of a state asserting their constitutional rights by acting as a political society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand and slavish, unlimited submission on the other. It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.

With the exception of a Constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), a state’s decision to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still affirm that might does not make right.

There is no question as to whether or when “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED. In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success! Perhaps this is why the federal government hopes you will never hear about it. According to the Tenth Amendment Center:

“25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law [REAL ID Act]..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.”

But that’s not all; another example of “official” nullification has occurred in the form of an unlikely states’ rights ally: Medical marijuana.

There was a time when the federal government took the Constitution seriously enough that Congress did what is required in order to enact a nationwide ban on a substance. Even though the experiment would eventually be seen by most Americans as a mistake and a failure, the 18th Amendment was passed and the era known as “Prohibition” began. Four years later, it was repealed.

When it came to marijuana prohibition, however, the feds had another trick up their sleeve. All three branches of the federal government would agree on a very novel, liberal interpretation of the “commerce clause” which would allow them to regulate virtually any substance, including marijuana, even though there’s supposedly no “legal” commerce in the plant. Since that time, the federal government has managed to claim, with a straight face, as it were, that a plant grown in your back yard, never sold, and never leaving your property, is somehow able to be completely banned by the federal government under the interstate “commerce clause.” The only problem with their claim is that the states just aren’t buying it.

Fourteen states have actively refused to comply with federal laws on marijuana, and it looks as if six more are about to join the effort. In a recent blog post, Mark Kreslins observes:

“..medical marijuana now poses a real threat to the enforcement power of the Federal Government. With state after state defying Washington DC over this issue..Washington DC has a choice to make; enforce their laws based on a very liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause by sending thousands of DEA agents into all fifty states…or…look the other way. Thus far, they’ve chosen to look the other way for if they create the appearance of a Federal takeover of police powers in the States, they will fully expose their extra-constitutional behavior and provoke a direct confrontation with the States who will use the 10th Amendment (hopefully) to defend their prerogatives.”

Whatever your view may be regarding marijunana use, medical or otherwise, one thing is apparent: “Official” nullification has happened, and it works! Washington will have to get used to it.

What remains to be seen, however, is whether in addition to “officially” nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, state governments will be willing to use their power to “officially” interpose themselves between agents of the federal government and the people of their state. In the unlikely event that one or more branches of the federal government decides to take extra-legal measures to punish residents of a state for exercising their constitutional rights in defiance of unconstitutional federal laws, will that state’s government have the courage to hamper or even neutralize such extra-legal measures?

There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.

Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider, is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.

Of course, it all depends on the people of the several states: ordinary people like you and I. Although I’ve discovered that there are more elected representatives at the state level who are committed to acting in a courageous and principled manner than I ever dared hope, most of their peers lack such a brave commitment. Most of them will stick their head in the sand or sit on the fence until they determine which way the wind is blowing. And so it’s our opinion, not the opinion of the American people in aggregate, but our opinion as citizens of our respective states, that will influence the decision of our state representatives to either stand tall or to kneel down and knuckle under.

But do you even know the men and women who represent you? I’m not talking about those who represent you in Washington, but rather in Phoenix, Salem, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Denver, Austin, Oklahoma City, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Nashville, Richmond, Harrisburg, Indianapolis, Columbus and Springfield.

If you don’t know them, and you care about our republic, you should make it your highest priority to get to know them and establish rapport with them as soon as possible.

For any of you who really want to preserve our union, and at the same time retain your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, I can’t say it any better than 2008 presidential nominee of the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin:

“..it is absolutely obligatory that freedom-minded Americans refocus their attention to electing State legislators, governors, judges and sheriffs who will fearlessly defend their God-given liberties..as plainly and emphatically as I know how to say it, I am telling you: ONLY THE STATES CAN DEFEND OUR LIBERTY NOW! ..this reality means we will have to completely readjust our thinking and priorities.”

Derek Sheriff is an ex-Green Beret turned activist and the State Chapter Coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center.

HB 160 – AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE

13Jan2010… 0059h

2009 SESSION

09-0353

04/09

HOUSE BILL 160

AN ACT relative to physical force in defense of a person.

SPONSORS: Rep. Pepino, Hills 11; Rep. Mead, Hills 4; Rep. B. Shaw, Hills 16; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 3; Rep. P. Price, Hills 26; Sen. Gallus, Dist 1; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Letourneau, Dist 19

COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety

AMENDED ANALYSIS

This bill provides that the mere display of a firearm or other means of self-defense intended to warn away a person making a threat shall not constitute a criminal act.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

13Jan2010… 0059h

09-0353

04/09

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

AN ACT relative to physical force in defense of a person.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Paragraph; Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4 by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraph:

II-a. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act.

2 New Paragraph; Criminal Threatening. Amend RSA 631:4 by inserting after paragraph III the following new paragraph:

IV. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act under this section.

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2010.

HB 1648-FN – AS INTRODUCED

2010 SESSION

10-2279

08/04

HOUSE BILL 1648-FN

AN ACT prohibiting interference with access to medical services and health insurance of New Hampshire citizens.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Dumaine, Rock 3; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Rep. Villeneuve, Hills 18

COMMITTEE: Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs

ANALYSIS

This bill makes it a misdemeanor for an officer of the government to interfere with or withhold medical services from legal residents of New Hampshire.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

10-2279

08/04

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten

AN ACT prohibiting interference with access to medical services and health insurance of New Hampshire citizens.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Findings.

I. The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.

II. The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.

III. Each State acceded to the compact titled the Constitution for the United States of America as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party.

IV. The State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised.”

V. The other States that included recommendations: Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change.

VI. These recommended changes were incorporated as the Ninth Amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the Tenth Amendment, 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, to the Constitution for the United States of America.

VII. The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, all remaining powers for their own self-government.

VIII. The construction applied by the general government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution. Such words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.

IX. Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

X. No power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people. Furthermore, also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, freedom of speech and of the press, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals;

XI. All acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force.

XII. The Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, and slavery, and no other crimes.

XIII. All acts of Congress, the orders of the Executive or orders of the Judiciary which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

XIV. The State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “Twelfth Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.”

XV. The other States that included recommendations: New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

XVI. These recommended changes were incorporated as the second amendment.

XVII. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in Heller v. The District of Columbia, (2008), that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right of the people.

XVIII. All acts of Congress, the orders of the Executive or orders of the Judiciary which assume to regulate or license the owner ship of firearms manufactured, sold and held within the jurisdiction of any State are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to regulate or license the owner ship of firearms manufactured, sold and held within the jurisdiction of any State is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory subject to the limitations of its own Constitution.

XIX. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states.

XX. All compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding are prohibited.

XXI. The Constitution for the United States of America, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 gives Congress the authority to authorize inferior officers of the government of the United States of America not enumerated in the Constitution by law and for them to be appointed by the manner proscribed by law enacted by the Congress, and that the Constitution gives not such authority to the President.

XXII. No officer not authorized by Constitution or by law or exercising a power not authorized by the Constitution, nor their subordinates shall have any authority in, or over the sovereign State of New Hampshire, nor any inhabitant or resident thereof, nor any franchises created under the authority thereof when within the borders of the State of New Hampshire.

XXIII. The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

XXIV. The Legislatures and Legislators of the several States have the right and duty to consider the constitutionality of any legislation act or order promlugated by the government of the United States of America; and to protect their governments, inhabitants, and residents and instruments created under their authority by prohibiting, and if necessary punishing the enforcement any Acts by the Congress of the United States of America, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a prohibition or punishment include, but are not limited to:

(a) Requiring the States to create a national identification card system.

(b) Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

(c) Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

(d) Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

(e) Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

XXV. The Constitution for the United States, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Constitution for the United States of America Article 1, Section 8 delegates no power to Congress regarding healthcare or medicine. Therefore, all laws, statutes, rule sand regulations regulating the healthcare of the citizens of the States, not employed by the United States are not pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, and are not part of the supreme law of the land, and are not binding upon the citizens of the state.

XXVI. Any act, order, law, statute, regulation or rule restricting the ability of New Hampshire citizens to contract with healthcare professionals or facilities for the provision healthcare services or to contract with corporations providing health insurance authorized by the State of New Hampshire for health insurance is unconstitutional, void and of no force. Any attempt to enforce such a law is an affront to the Sovereignty of the States and their Citizens.

2 New Chapter; Healthcare Choices. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 415-J the following new chapter.

CHAPTER 415-K

HEALTHCARE CHOICES

415-K:1 Definitions. In this chapter:

I. “Healthcare professional” means any physician, chiropractor, dentist, nurse practitioner, physicians assistant, nurse, dental assistant, midwife, or naturopath, or any other person recognized to practice medicinal arts or sciences in New Hampshire.

II. “Healthcare facility” means any hospital, clinic, physician’s office, chiropractors office, dentist’s office or any other facility licensed by the State of New Hampshire to provide medical services or for healthcare professionals to practice medicinal arts or sciences.

III. “Health insurance provider” means any corporation authorized by the insurance commissioner of the State of New Hampshire to contract with residents of New Hampshire, or sole proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations located in New Hampshire.

415-K:2 Interference Prohibited.

I. Any officer, agent, or employee of the United States or employee of any corporation providing services to the United States who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, or withholds medical services from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire or withholds medicines or medical treatment from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire based upon a law, statute, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

II. Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, or withholds medical services from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire or withholds medicines or medical treatment from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire based upon a law, statute, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

III. Any officer, agent, or employee of the United States or employee of any corporation providing services to the United States who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, voids or penalties for a contract between a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire and a health insurance provider authorized to business in New Hampshire based upon a law, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

IV. Any public servant of the of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, voids, or penalties for a contract between a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire and a health insurance provider authorized to business in New Hampshire based upon a law, statute, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

3 Copies Required. Three copies of this act shall be transmitted by the house clerk of the New Hampshire house of representatives to the President of the United States, the presiding members each chamber of the Congress of the United States, and the chief executive and the presiding members of the legislature of each State comprising the United States of America.

4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

LBAO

10-2279

12/16/09

HB 1648-FN – FISCAL NOTE

AN ACT prohibiting interference with access to medical services and health insurance of New Hampshire citizens.

FISCAL IMPACT:

• The Judicial Branch, Judicial Council, Department of Justice and New Hampshire Association of Counties state this bill may increase state and county expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2010 and each year thereafter. The Legislative Branch states this bill will increase state general fund expenditures by $2,063 in FY 2010. There will be no fiscal impact on local expenditures or state, county and local revenue.

METHODOLOGY:

• • • • • • • • • LBAO

                  10-2279

                  12/16/09

The Judicial Branch states this bill will add RSA 415-K, entitled “Healthcare Choices.” Proposed RSA 415-K:2, I and III make it a class A misdemeanor for an officer, agent or employee of the United States or an employee or any corporation providing services to the United States to interfere with medical services or health insurance being provided to New Hampshire citizens. Proposed RSA 415-K:2, II and IV make it a class B misdemeanor for any public servant of the State to interfere with medical services or health insurance being provided to New Hampshire citizens. The Branch has no information to estimate how many new misdemeanors would be brought as a result of this bill. The Branch states the cost of a class A misdemeanor case is $51.14 and the cost of a class B misdemeanor case is $36.89 in FY 2010 and each year thereafter. The possibility of appeals increases the likelihood the fiscal impact on the Branch will exceed $10,000.

The Judicial Council states to the extent a misdemeanor offense results in the right to counsel this bill may have an indeterminable increase in general fund expenditures. The Council states if an individual is found to be indigent, the flat fee of $275 per misdemeanor is charged by a public defender or contract attorney. If an assigned counsel attorney is used the fee is $60 per hour with a cap of $1,400 for a misdemeanor charge. The Council also states additional costs could be incurred if an appeal is filed. The public defender, contract attorney and assigned counsel rates for Supreme Court appeals is $2,000 per case, with many assigned counsel attorneys seeking permission to exceed the fee cap. Requests to exceed the fee cap are seldom

granted. Finally, expenditures would increase if services other than counsel are requested and approved by the court during the defense of a case or during an appeal.

The Department of Justice states investigations and prosecutions for the majority of allegations of criminal conduct lodged against state officials would be the responsibility of the Department. The Department would also be responsible for representing the State in the event a public official is convicted and appeals the conviction. The Department’s civil bureau would need to develop appropriate protocols and procedures to avoid violations of this bill with the various departments and agencies involved in direct treatment and care of citizens of the State. It is estimated training and development of protocols and procedures would take approximately 500 hours of an assistant attorney general. The civil bureau would also be responsible for defending any civil litigation against state agencies or state employees resulting from this law. Lastly, the administrative prosecutions unit may incur costs if violations of this bill results in complaints before a professional licensing board. The unit is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints filed before a professional licensing board. The Department is not able to estimate the number and nature of allegations that would arise as a result of this bill to determine the fiscal impact.

The New Hampshire Association of Counties states to the extent an individual is prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to incarceration, the counties may have increased expenditures. The Association is unable to determine the number of individuals who might be detained or incarcerated as a result of this bill. The average cost to incarcerate an individual in a county facility is $35,342 a year.

The Legislative Branch would have expenditures of $2,063 in FY 2010 related to the copying and distributing of copies of this bill to the identified parties if it were to become law.

2010 SESSION

10-2351

04/09

HOUSE BILL 1433

AN ACT relative to lawful commerce in firearms, including manufacture and sale, in New Hampshire.

SPONSORS: Rep. Hinkle, Hills 19; Rep. Kolodziej, Rock 4; Rep. Daniels, Hills 6; Rep. Sapareto, Rock 5

COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety

ANALYSIS

This bill exempts firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

10-2351

04/09

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten

AN ACT relative to lawful commerce in firearms, including manufacture and sale, in New Hampshire.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Legislative Declarations of Authority. The legislature declares that the authority for this act is the following:

I. The 10th Amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of New Hampshire certain powers as they were understood at the time that New Hampshire ratified the Bill of Rights, particularly the 10^th Amendment in 1790. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of New Hampshire and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by New Hampshire and the United States.

II. The Ninth Amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of New Hampshire certain rights as they were understood at the time that New Hampshire ratified the Bill of Rights, particularly the 10^th Amendment in 1790. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of New Hampshire and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by New Hampshire and the United States.

III. The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture, on an intrastate basis, of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

IV. The Second Amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that New Hampshire ratified, in 1790, the Bill of Rights, particularly the Second Amendment, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of New Hampshire and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by New Hampshire and the United States, by that said ratification.

V. New Hampshire, having already established in 1784 its own constitution, with Articles 2 and 7 guaranteeing that New Hampshire citizens had the right to defend and protect life and property and that these rights would not be superseded by the powers granted to the Congress of the United States of America, such that when New Hampshire ratified the United States constitution these rights were clearly understood to exist in the State of New Hampshire. Article 2 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights: Natural Rights. All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Article 7 of the New Hampshire bill of rights clearly provides that the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled, June 2, 1784.

VI. Article 2a of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights: The Bearing of Arms. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state, December 1, 1982. This article was an explicit recognition of the rights implicit in Article 2 as it was adopted in 1784.

2 New Chapter; Lawful Commerce in Firearms. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 159-D the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 159-E

LAWFUL COMMERCE IN FIREARMS

159-E:1 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:

I. “Firearm” means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will, or is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. “Firearm” shall include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, or any firearm muffler or firearm silencer.

II. “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, optics for target identification, and lights for target illumination.

III. “Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

IV. “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, molding, or other processes for working materials.

159-E:2 Prohibitions. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire is not subject to federal law or taxation, or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in New Hampshire from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into New Hampshire and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as, but not limited to, unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in New Hampshire from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into New Hampshire from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in New Hampshire.

159-E:3 Marketing of Firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in New Hampshire under this chapter shall have the words “Made in New Hampshire” clearly stamped, inscribed, or otherwise marked on a central part of the firearm, such as the receiver or frame.

159-E:4 Applicability. This chapter shall apply to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in this chapter, and retained in New Hampshire after January 1, 2011.

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2011.