The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 6, 2009, 09:50 AM   #26
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,887
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.

As of February, 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.

Last edited by publius42; May 6, 2009 at 09:51 AM. Reason: coding
publius42 is offline  
Old May 6, 2009, 12:05 PM   #27
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 6, 2009, 12:55 PM   #28
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
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.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old May 6, 2009, 01:11 PM   #29
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 6, 2009, 02:21 PM   #30
miboso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2007
Location: Real northern California
Posts: 504
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
__________________
David
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of These United States of America, and to the Republic which it defines.
miboso is offline  
Old May 6, 2009, 04:56 PM   #31
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 6, 2009, 05:09 PM   #32
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
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?
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old May 8, 2009, 10:19 AM   #33
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Here is what the Montana Gun law is aimed at.....

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

Quote:
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.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old May 8, 2009, 04:59 PM   #34
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 16, 2009, 12:51 AM   #35
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,462
Glenn Beck did a segment on this subject and interviewed the authors. The segment may be watched HERE

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"..
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

Last edited by jimpeel; May 16, 2009 at 01:00 AM.
jimpeel is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 07:16 AM   #36
riggins_83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2009
Location: Wherever I may roam
Posts: 1,483
What companies in Montana currently produce firearms covered under this law? I dug around and wasn't able to find any.
riggins_83 is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 09:15 AM   #37
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,480
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.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 10:46 AM   #38
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 10:19 PM   #39
Sodbuster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 1999
Location: Wyo-Tana
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
What companies in Montana
Two of them would be Cooper Rifles and the Montana Rifle company; each makes a fine rifle.
__________________
Remember, many times what we view as a curse in the present turns out to be a blessing in the future. Don't worry about it a lot. Things have a way of working out. Trust me on this one. - - Uncle Bill Martino
Sodbuster is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 11:17 PM   #40
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,462
Perhaps more firearms companies will move there if this thing withstands challenge.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old May 30, 2009, 12:16 AM   #41
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,998
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.
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Old May 30, 2009, 09:18 PM   #42
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,462
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.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old May 30, 2009, 10:15 PM   #43
armedtotheteeth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2005
Location: podunk, Texas
Posts: 1,610
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!!!
__________________
a well placed 22 bullet will out perform a poorly placed 50 BMg anyday. , Not really HA!!
armedtotheteeth is offline  
Old May 30, 2009, 10:35 PM   #44
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
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.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12908 seconds with 9 queries