The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 19, 2009, 03:56 PM   #1
ruggedtraditions
Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 17
Montana Firearms Freedom Act - House bill 246

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 -
ruggedtraditions is offline  
Old January 19, 2009, 05:24 PM   #2
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,483
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.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 19, 2009, 05:40 PM   #3
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,314
I like the idea here. The interstate commerce clause has been wildly abused, IMO.

...Aren't there SCOTUS rulings that oppose this, already?
raimius is offline  
Old January 19, 2009, 05:43 PM   #4
Yellowfin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: West Upstate NY
Posts: 2,303
I like it. Pass it and the wife and I will be there in 2 years or less.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org
New York gun owners unite! Join now! http://www.nyshooters.net
May Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Yellowfin is offline  
Old January 19, 2009, 11:47 PM   #5
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
I'm beginning to like my northern neighbor more and more!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 01:07 AM   #6
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,141
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.
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 02:52 AM   #7
ruggedtraditions
Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 17
Antipitas,

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

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

God Bless the Land of the FREE.
ruggedtraditions is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 03:08 AM   #8
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
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.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 08:47 AM   #9
MosinM38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2007
Posts: 1,030
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.
MosinM38 is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 12:05 PM   #10
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruggedtraditions
Antipitas,

You make it sound like you didnt like us that much before? MT and ID are like brothers.
Other than Missoula, I've always liked Montana... Wife won't move out of Idaho though! [sniff, sniff]
Quote:
Originally Posted by vranasaurus
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MosinM38
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 12:10 PM   #11
ruggedtraditions
Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 17
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.

Last edited by ruggedtraditions; January 20, 2009 at 10:52 PM.
ruggedtraditions is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 12:22 PM   #12
ruggedtraditions
Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 17
Quote:
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.
ruggedtraditions is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 01:02 PM   #13
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
I just might take you up on that. Copy the bill and forward it to my State Reps.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 01:24 PM   #14
ruggedtraditions
Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 17
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.
ruggedtraditions is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 09:13 PM   #15
armedandsafe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2005
Location: Moses Lake WA
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
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
__________________
Armed and Safe: Not just a theory

If it time to bury them, it is time to dig them up.
Remember, "Behind every blade of grass."
armedandsafe is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 10:49 PM   #16
ruggedtraditions
Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 17
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.
ruggedtraditions is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 11:22 PM   #17
MPD223
Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2005
Location: Modesto,Ca
Posts: 78
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.
MPD223 is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 12:55 AM   #18
ruggedtraditions
Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 17
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.

Last edited by ruggedtraditions; January 21, 2009 at 01:10 AM.
ruggedtraditions is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 02:51 AM   #19
jakeswensonmt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2006
Location: Western Montana
Posts: 913
off topic but I couldn't stay silent

Quote:
I'm beginning to like my northern neighbor more and more!
We love you too!

Quote:
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?)
jakeswensonmt is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 09:41 AM   #20
rampage841512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
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.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun."
Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08
rampage841512 is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 01:21 PM   #21
ruggedtraditions
Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 17
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%20...egislators.asp. Additional contact information for the committee can be found below.
ruggedtraditions is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 01:37 PM   #22
levrluvr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: no. IL
Posts: 276
oh how I want out of Illinausea.......
levrluvr is offline  
Old May 5, 2009, 01:58 PM   #23
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
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).
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 5, 2009, 02:57 PM   #24
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramius
...Aren't there SCOTUS rulings that oppose this, already?
Yes, there are. Gonzalez vs Raich from the Supreme Court and US vs Stewart from the 9th Circuit.
publius42 is offline  
Old May 5, 2009, 04:32 PM   #25
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
JuanCarlos 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 12:29 AM.


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 0.15485 seconds with 7 queries