PDA

View Full Version : Montana Firearms Freedom Act - House bill 246


ruggedtraditions
January 19, 2009, 03:56 PM
Lets really get behind this guys!! It may be our only chance of hope with these aniti-gun liberals in DC.

Call your represantitives today!!!!

THE HEARING IS ON THURSDAY 1-22-09!!!




Link to Original - http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

2009 Montana Legislature

Additional Bill Links PDF (with line numbers)

HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK



A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE."



BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:



NEW SECTION. Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 7] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".



NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:

(1) 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 Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) 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.

(4) 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 Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.



NEW SECTION. Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7], the following definitions apply:

(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) "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, and lights for target illumination.

(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) "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, or other processes for working materials.



NEW SECTION. Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law 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 Montana 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 Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as 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 Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana 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 Montana.



NEW SECTION. 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.



NEW SECTION. Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.



NEW SECTION. Section 7. Duties of the attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.

(2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.



NEW SECTION. Section 8. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 7] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 7].



NEW SECTION. Section 9. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

- END -

gc70
January 19, 2009, 05:24 PM
Although the firearms aspect of the proposed legislation is positive, the real value lies in the fact that it claims 9th and 10th amendment powers for states to control intrastate commerce and creates a barrier against the federal government's abuse of its interstate commerce powers to try to regulate essentially everything.

raimius
January 19, 2009, 05:40 PM
I like the idea here. The interstate commerce clause has been wildly abused, IMO.

...Aren't there SCOTUS rulings that oppose this, already?

Yellowfin
January 19, 2009, 05:43 PM
I like it. Pass it and the wife and I will be there in 2 years or less.

Al Norris
January 19, 2009, 11:47 PM
I'm beginning to like my northern neighbor more and more!

NWPilgrim
January 20, 2009, 01:07 AM
That's is the kind of legislation that is needed. I have a feeling Idaho, Montana and Wyoming will be last enclave of freedom before the now inevitable revolution.

My wife is very resistant to moving anywhere at this point in life, but a stand for liberty like this would probably change her mind.

The Feds will go ape if this passes but I wonder how many Fed agents would want to go to Montana to enforce federal law.

ruggedtraditions
January 20, 2009, 02:52 AM
Antipitas,

You make it sound like you didnt like us that much before? MT and ID are like brothers.:D

Call your Reps. Lets get this thing going in more states than MT. We need Allies.

God Bless the Land of the FREE.

vranasaurus
January 20, 2009, 03:08 AM
Very interesting.

The issue would arise when someone who buys a made in montana firearm and then subsequently exports it from the state upon moving from that state.

While I agree with the intent of the legislation, to limit the power of the federal government, I think this will be a certain loser in the federal court. The interstate commerce clause coupled with the supremacy clause will be used to wipe this off the books.

I like the fact that the state will seek a declaratory judgment from the federal courts upon being notified that someone is going to manufacture a firearm in Montana. This will save some guy from having to be the test case for this. I'd hate to be in the federal pokie with my only excuse being that my state legislature said it was OK.

MosinM38
January 20, 2009, 08:47 AM
Okay.

When Legislation is talked, I get confused...at least in wording ;)

Basically, in-effect, any weapon made in Montana, and remained in Montana would be exempt (Theoretically) by federal law? As would be parts/ammunition made in Montana.

However guns made outside Montana, parts and ammo made outside, would still be subject to restriction?

So theoretically a AR-15 maker could come to Montana and build their rifles without being restricted by a semi-auto ban on the rest of the nation?

Good idea, it wouldn't happen. The courts at all levels would over-ride it, even though valid. And even if it came down to force, who in Montana would actually stop them? (I live in Montana by the way). I for one would help if it was possible, but of the thousands of gun-owners in Montana......let's face it...I doubt it would happen.

Al Norris
January 20, 2009, 12:05 PM
Antipitas,

You make it sound like you didnt like us that much before? MT and ID are like brothers. :D
Other than Missoula, I've always liked Montana... Wife won't move out of Idaho though! [sniff, sniff]
The issue would arise when someone who buys a made in montana firearm and then subsequently exports it from the state upon moving from that state.
Exporting is an act of commerce. Moving to another State and bringing your personal property with you is not.

Of course, that's rational thinking. Currently, the US Congress thinks anything you do affects commerce, so they can regulate it - And the Courts back them up (See RAICH).
So theoretically a AR-15 maker could come to Montana and build their rifles without being restricted by a semi-auto ban on the rest of the nation?
Correct. The actual intent of such a law would be to curtail the Feds from their headlong flight in controlling any and all commerce, as affecting interstate commerce.

ruggedtraditions
January 20, 2009, 12:10 PM
It does not make Full-auto legal.

In 2007 (then HB420) it passed in the House by 83-17, and only lost by 2 votes in the senate. You can listen to the Audio of the hearings on the MT Legislature website, its very interesting.

It has a lot to do with making it easier for small businesses to start firearms/accessories/ammo producing companies. Without obscene regulation from the Feds. Companies could get started in MT then build their business, and then become federally registered when they have the money/resources to do so.

In 2007 the plan was to bring a Lawsuit against the Federal Govternment to determine the federal standing of the bill after it passed.

States have done the same thing in relation to medical marijuana. What's the difference?

The Feds have been overstepping their boundaries on gun laws and its time to put them in check.

With the Heller decision this summer. I am really surprised that there is not more optimism. NOW is our chance! We cannot expect that our current President is going to understand our dilemma, he does not relate to us. God Bless him, but he does not come from a "positive" gun culture and therefore will never support our rights. Its time for the States to demand they keep their rights.

ruggedtraditions
January 20, 2009, 12:22 PM
Other than Missoula, I've always liked Montana... Wife won't move out of Idaho though! [sniff, sniff]

I am in Missoula, I like it here. All the loud hippies do give it a bad name though.

I like Idaho too, I have spent a lot of time in the border mountains. Some of my family are living there now.

Make some noise, lets see a Bill go forward in ID too. There are lots of people in TX talking about it too.

Al Norris
January 20, 2009, 01:02 PM
I just might take you up on that. Copy the bill and forward it to my State Reps.

ruggedtraditions
January 20, 2009, 01:24 PM
Good do it and tell all your friends too also. If we keep making our voices heard we may get what we deserve. I feel like I have been to quiet, and I am trying to make up for it now.:)

armedandsafe
January 20, 2009, 09:13 PM
NEW SECTION. 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.

As written this excludes shotguns, which, by definition, discharge more than one projectile with each press of the trigger.

Other than that, I like it. Sic 'em, guys!

Pops

ruggedtraditions
January 20, 2009, 10:49 PM
I will look into the two or more projectiles issues. I cant imagine that they would exclude shotguns, but it is not written well. Its not to late to change things.

MPD223
January 20, 2009, 11:22 PM
I only wish I could make California wages in MT. I guess I'll have to wait until retirement. Or if BHO starts to chip away at more of our right it may be sooner.

ruggedtraditions
January 21, 2009, 12:55 AM
If money is your primary concern, not freedom stay in CA. I cant afford my own place yet. But at least I have my freedoms.

jakeswensonmt
January 21, 2009, 02:51 AM
I'm beginning to like my northern neighbor more and more!
We love you too!

Other than Missoula, I've always liked Montana.
Ouch! I was born in Missoula, and live near there now. I hope someday you give it another chance, it's a great town with lots of nice, real, down-homey people (got a couple jerks too but what place doesn't?)

rampage841512
January 21, 2009, 09:41 AM
I think I'll be sending a copy of Montana's proposed legislation to my own representive with a letter explaining who pleased I would be to see the same submitted and passed in Alabama.

ruggedtraditions
January 21, 2009, 01:21 PM
Dont forget about HB228 Right to Self-Defense and HB 246 Montana Made Firearms Freedom Act.

At least Call 440-4800 and leave a message its really easy. Tell them you want to send it to the whole committee and thy will. It only takes 5min please call NOW! Make your voice heard.

NRA link also includes House Judiciary Committee contact info.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4313

Montana Self-Defense Legislation to be Heard on Thursday!

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Please Contact the House Judiciary Committee Today!

On Thursday, January 22, the House Judiciary Committee will consider important self-defense legislation and it is critical that Montana’s law-abiding gun owners voice their support for the bill.


House Bill 228, sponsored by State Representative Krayton Kerns (R-58), is a broad piece of legislation that provides a number of specific protections for law-abiding citizens. The provisions of HB 228 facilitate the right of self-defense by safeguarding victims across the whole legal continuum of an incident in which self defense is warranted and necessary, from before anything happens to the resolution of a criminal trial. HB228 does the following:


-Clarifies the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in plain view and to display the firearm for harmless defensive purposes;
-Allows a person who can lawfully possess a firearm and who doesn’t use it to commit a criminal offense to carry it concealed anywhere in the state without first obtaining governmental permission;
-Prevents landlords and hotel operators from restricting law-abiding citizens’ self-defense rights and requires employers who do restrict such rights to provide a comparable level of security and safety;
-Clarifies in statute the existing legal precedent that there is no duty to retreat from a threat before exercising the right to self-defense and allows a law-abiding citizen to use reasonable force in exercising the existing law that gives a private person the authority to arrest an offender;
-Protects law-abiding citizens against seizure of their firearms absent an arrest and ensures return of seized property if a person is exonerated;
-Ensures that self-defense claims are adequately considered during incident investigations; and,
-Shifts to the state, if self-defense is asserted by a defendant in a criminal case, the burden of proving an absence of justification and provides reaonable attorney fees to a person who is accused of an offense and who is found to have acted in self-defense.

For a section-by-section analysis of the bill in order to better understand and communicate with legislators, please visit http://progunleaders.org/Self-defense/.


Please contact your legislators and the members of the House Judiciary Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to support and protect your right to self-defense by voting for HB228. Please call (406) 444-4800 to leave a message for your legislators as well as the House Judiciary Committee. You may also use the “online message form” located at http://leg.mt.gov/css/About%20the%20Legislature/Lawmaking%20Process/contact%20legislators.asp. Additional contact information for the committee can be found below.

levrluvr
January 21, 2009, 01:37 PM
oh how I want out of Illinausea.......:(

Al Norris
May 5, 2009, 01:58 PM
An update on this bill.

On 03-21-2009, the bill passed the House (85-14) and was sent to the Senate.

On 03-27-2009, the bill passed out of the Senate Businee, Labor, and Economics Committee (7-4).

On 04-02-2009, the bill passed the Senate (29-21) and was sent to the Governor.

The Governor of Montana signed the bill into law on 04-15-2009. The law goes into effect on 10-01-2009 (info taken from here (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=&P_BILL_NO=&P_BILL_DFT_NO=LC0671&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=)).

publius42
May 5, 2009, 02:57 PM
...Aren't there SCOTUS rulings that oppose this, already?

Yes, there are. Gonzalez vs Raich (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html) from the Supreme Court and US vs Stewart (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/315E1DE83BC0D4258825719D005C71F8/$file/0210318.pdf?openelement) from the 9th Circuit.

JuanCarlos
May 5, 2009, 04:32 PM
I think there's almost no chance of this actually standing up in a federal court. Wish there was, but I disagree with the optimistic assertions that GvR won't be found to apply in this case as well.

Still, bravo for trying, and I'll still maintain hope.

States have done the same thing in relation to medical marijuana. What's the difference?

You'll note that the federal government still holds that possession and distribution of medical marijuana is still illegal in those states. The apparent policy of the new administration not to waste resources enforcing those laws doesn't change this; the laws are still in force, and such a policy can be reversed on a dime.

I only wish I could make California wages in MT. I guess I'll have to wait until retirement. Or if BHO starts to chip away at more of our right it may be sooner.

Stay the heck out of Bozeman and you can live quite nicely on MT wages up here.

publius42
May 6, 2009, 09:50 AM
The apparent policy of the new administration not to waste resources enforcing those laws doesn't change this; the laws are still in force, and such a policy can be reversed on a dime.
That was actually a campaign promise, and they swear they're going to start living up to it, so I expect they will very soon. :rolleyes:

As of February (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/05/dea-led-by-bush-continues-pot-raids/), we were still waiting. I don't know if there have been any busts since then, but it would kind of surprise me if there have not.

csmsss
May 6, 2009, 12:05 PM
The question, to my mind, isn't whether the federal courts will uphold Montana's statute (they won't, under over a century of an incredibly expansionist view of the interstate commerce clause), but what Montana will do when the dust has settled. There are many who believe that Montana's next shot will be to attempt secession. Should be interesting.

JuanCarlos
May 6, 2009, 12:55 PM
The question, to my mind, isn't whether the federal courts will uphold Montana's statute (they won't, under over a century of an incredibly expansionist view of the interstate commerce clause), but what Montana will do when the dust has settled. There are many who believe that Montana's next shot will be to attempt secession. Should be interesting.

Yeah, I see that happening. Right.

A) Even assuming the "natives" would get behind it, increased migration into the state from places that aren't crazy pretty much guarantees that secession would not have the level of support needed to go forward.

B) Secession ain't legal. Whether you think it should be, and whether you're interested in arguing the validity of this legal fact, does not change the fact that the federal government isn't going to let Montana go.

C) Even assuming popular support could be gained, and even assuming you somehow managed to successfully secede (peacefully or through force), I'm pretty sure Montana would quickly descend to the level of third world craphole. Nothing against Montana, or the people here; I'd say the same about most (and possibly all) states, as well as most regions. Though I think this holds true for Montana more than some others. The United States is truly more than the sum of its parts.

EDIT: Basically talks of secession, particularly by individual states, always make me chuckle.

csmsss
May 6, 2009, 01:11 PM
Even assuming the "natives" would get behind it, increased migration into the state from places that aren't crazy pretty much guarantees that secession would not have the level of support needed to go forward.I would argue that the increased migration into Montana would be from folks who FAVOR, not reject secession.

B) Secession ain't legal. Whether you think it should be, and whether you're interested in arguing the validity of this legal fact, does not change the fact that the federal government isn't going to let Montana go.Actually, the "legality" of secession is irrelevant. There is not one bit of settled law on this topic; the U.S. Constitution is entirely silent on the issue. The Union victory in the American Civil War did not settle the legality of secession, only the overwhelming military superiority of the northern states over the southern states.

C) Even assuming popular support could be gained, and even assuming you somehow managed to successfully secede (peacefully or through force), I'm pretty sure Montana would quickly descend to the level of third world craphole. Nothing against Montana, or the people here; I'd say the same about most (and possibly all) states, as well as most regions. Though I think this holds true for Montana more than some others. The United States is truly more than the sum of its parts.This is, of course, entirely speculative on your part and you have no way of knowing what would happen should Montana secede. You also have no way of knowing what the federal response to a Montana secession might be. None of us do.

EDIT: Basically talks of secession, particularly by individual states, always make me chuckle.Laugh all you want, however the likelihood of one or more states' attempting to secede from the U.S. grows each day.

miboso
May 6, 2009, 02:21 PM
I would like to see this country split into 2 countries. One for following the constitution, and the other for the Dems and Repubs to fight over how the constitution should be violated.

Well, a man's got to have a dream:D

Al Norris
May 6, 2009, 04:56 PM
Instead of of the dubious talk of secession, which would take this thread completely off topic and closure...

Or even the discussion over how the feds will not allow this Montana law to stand....

How about discussing how Montana might respond to the question over the validity of its laws?

Amendments to the COTUS do what, exactly?

We all know the reasons for the Bill of Rights, but what exactly do they do? How do the BOR affect the COTUS? There are some valid arguments that they affect something. But what and to what degree?

The Congress has pretty much plenary power over interstate commerce. Does the prohibition within the 2A have any affect over that power? It was placed into effect after the commerce clause, therefore is there an argument that the 2A prohibits acts of Congress that rely on the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, if those clauses interfere (infringe) upon the right(s) articulated?

If so, could this be a (or even, the) means for States to revive the long dead 10th Amendment?

The Bill of Rights stated purpose was to further restrict the Federal Government, as well as to make certain declaratory statements. We know this, as the preamble to the BoR says just that.

And while a preamble is not law, it is used to determine (interpret) what the restrictions or declaratory statements are to mean, as regards the rest of the body of the Constitution. Just as the Supreme Court has often used the preamble to the Constitution itself, to guide and interpret how far Federal Power may reach, in fulfilling the purpose (stated goals of the preamble) of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, there is a conflict in the commerce clause and the 2nd amendment.

The Congress has used the commerce clause to regulate arms between the states. Such regulation includes the outright banning of civilian ownership of certain weapons that it deems have no usefullness to the citizenry. The cosmetic semi-automatic rifle ban of 1994 is just such an example.

Yet, the 2nd amendment says that the right to keep (own; possess) and bear (shoulder; wear; use) arms (defined at the time of the writings as any small arm an infantryman would use in combat) shall not be infringed. Clearly, the ban on certain weapons, weapons that bear a similar likeness to the weapons used by the Army, is an infringement. That particular law has ended, so it is now a moot point. But it is an usefull illustration of how the Congress, and the Courts (because the Courts had consistently upheld this law) have infringed this right.

The 2nd amendment, without explicitly saying so, modifies the commerce clause to comform to the language of the 2nd. Any interpretation that would say otherwise, completely voids the restrictions of that amendment.

I will go one further. Each and every power of the Federal Government is modified by the 2nd amendment, if said power would infringe the right. That is what amendments to the Constitution do. They modify (restrict, when dealing with the BoR) the main document.

Article V of the Constitution states that Amendments to the Constitution "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution..." This is one part of the Constitution that has remained intact and without modification since it was ratified. Therefore, according to Article V, the BoR does not have a separate existence, but they do modify each, every, and any clause that would diminish the restrictions placed upon federal power by the very enactment and ratification of those broadly termed amendments.

The Bill of Rights, whether by design and purpose or by accident, are overly broad. For the Congress to restrict them, is a violation of its authority. For the Courts to interpret them as being less than they are, is to ignore the constitutional process of amendment.

JuanCarlos
May 6, 2009, 05:09 PM
I have little to add to that, except that I like how you think. And I feel kinda stupid for not seeing this fairly obvious implication earlier.

I guess this hadn't really been an issue before, since we didn't have a clear interpretation backing up the 2A as an individual right before. No other uses of the ISC have conflicted with amendments, have they?

Eghad
May 8, 2009, 10:19 AM
Here is what the Montana Gun law is aimed at.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has stated on some programs that the USSC would probably have 5 or 6 votes to overturn this ruling on the current court.

If this movement spreads to other states which I believe it has and gains momentum this would have Feds quaking in thier shoes. I am getting the popcorn and soda ready for the show. I know somebody in DC is sweating over the potential of this case. So do they make a big throwdown with propoganda and risk waking the sleeping giant or do nothing and hope it gets no attention?

Has my support.

Al Norris
May 8, 2009, 04:59 PM
Eghad, that is why my suggestion is to hit them with Constitutional Construction (I don't think we have the 5 votes to overturn Wickard, and the cases stemming from it - See Raich). Whatever the BOR may or may not protect, it surely overrides Congressional powers (Art. I Section 8) as regards legislation that abridges or infringes those amendments. If they don't, then there are no restrictions upon the Congress (and the Government, in general) at all (as Thomas summarized in Raich).

We have a lot of 1st amendment case law that does this, without ever saying this. That's what must change. The Courts need to recognize that whatever powers were granted, were then further restricted by those amendments.

jimpeel
May 16, 2009, 12:51 AM
Glenn Beck did a segment on this subject and interviewed the authors. The segment may be watched HERE (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/22301571/state-sovereignty.htm)

Apparently the governor has signed this law and it goes into effect October 1st.

Texas is going to soon follow suit according to one of the people interviewed who stated "We have already filed his (Gary Marbut's) bill in Texas"..

riggins_83
May 29, 2009, 07:16 AM
What companies in Montana currently produce firearms covered under this law? I dug around and wasn't able to find any.

ZeroJunk
May 29, 2009, 09:15 AM
What I thought was the most interesting comment in the Glenn Beck link was the concept of the state government instructing it's law enforcement not to enforce federal laws that it considered over reaching and unconstitutional thus overwhelming the federal authorities with the burden.
Sounds good, but will be interesting to see if any state will actually do that visibly.

carguychris
May 29, 2009, 10:46 AM
Texas is going to soon follow suit according to one of the people interviewed who stated "We have already filed his (Gary Marbut's) bill in Texas"..
The bill I heard about in TX was more of a generalized states' rights statement, not a gun-specific bill like MT.

IMHO the MT bill would have serious trouble passing in TX. The TX legislative process is notoriously difficult; there's a single short legislative session once every 2 years, and given the number of issues affecting our big and populous state, the sessions tend to degenerate into a horse race to pass mounds of legislation in a very short time. Bills aren't guaranteed a floor vote unless they have broad-based support and/or are favored by powerful committee members, and sometimes not even then. :(

TX has a strong and historically entrenched fiscally conservative legislative culture that crosses party lines. Based on the speeches I've heard, this is the main impetus behind the proposed state's-rights bill. OTOH despite out-of-state stereotypes, our legislature is not always strongly pro-gun. TX is still not an open-carry state and there has been no strong legislative action taken to change this. The recent campus-carry and employee-parking bills died in the House, were resurrected in the Senate, and look like they're going to wither on the vine because the regular legislative session ends June 1st.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in 2011 regardless. :)

Sodbuster
May 29, 2009, 10:19 PM
What companies in Montana
Two of them would be Cooper Rifles and the Montana Rifle company; each makes a fine rifle.

jimpeel
May 29, 2009, 11:17 PM
Perhaps more firearms companies will move there if this thing withstands challenge.

Tucker 1371
May 30, 2009, 12:16 AM
I absolutely hate the raping of the 10th ammendment that has occured in the last 100 years. GO MONTANA!!! I think ALL firearms laws should be at the discretion of the states, including laws on weapons that fall under the NFA and Hughes ammendment.

jimpeel
May 30, 2009, 09:18 PM
There are now thirty states which have passed, or have in the works, a Tenth Amendment resolution. The states see what is happening in DC and they do not like it.

armedtotheteeth
May 30, 2009, 10:15 PM
Yup, Texas has a sorta similar bill in the works. Id buy a Texas Ar in a haertbeat. Any body know of a Company in Texas that makes ARs??
Obama,Mcarthy, Pelosi, Feinstein, We snub our noses at you!!!

johnwilliamson062
May 30, 2009, 10:35 PM
If this passes in Montana and the Fed lets it go there wil be a place where small time gun smiths can do small arms r&D without being stifled by all the red tape.