Jump to content

Montana vs. Feds


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

The Texas Legislature needs to do this...

 

 

 

 

State exempts guns from federal regs

'No firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check'

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: May 07, 2009

1:00 am Eastern

 

 

 

By Bob Unruh

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WorldNetDaily

 

 

Montana statehouse

 

The state of Montana has drawn a line in the sand, challenging the federal government to decide whether to follow the U.S. Constitution with a new gun law that exempts from federal regulations any gun, gun accessory or ammunition made in the state and intended for use there.

 

"What this boils down to is:

 

 

"Guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana do not require any federal forms.

 

 

"Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered.

 

 

"There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.

"Moving to Montana soon," wrote a blogger called Primevalpapa.

 

In an era in which the administration of President Barack Obama is replete with anti-gun activists in influential positions, including an attorney general who supported a complete handgun ban in the District of Columbia before it was tossed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Montana's move is being called nothing less that revolutionary.

 

The legislative plan, signed recently by Gov. Brian Scheitzer, a Democrat, is called, "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."

 

The plan cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that "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," the legislation states.

 

"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 pre-empted by federal law. Congress has not expressly pre-empted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition," it says.

 

Further, state lawmakers cited the Second Amendment right of the people to "keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889."

 

It specifics that "unshaped wood" and other components are not considered firearms and sets out simple requirements:

 

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

 

At the FreedomsPhoenix blog, where author Ernest Hancock had a checkbox for visitors asking whether they wanted to be a "gun owner" or a "victim," he described the Montana action as simple defiance of the federal government.

 

"This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the state of Montana. The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal – confiscation of privately owned firearms," he wrote. "Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the federal government."

 

He cited "important points" about the plan:

 

"If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the state of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on [its] side," he said.

 

"Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. … There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana," he said.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't wait for this one to go to the Supreme Court.......Montana will clean the feds clocks as they have no right at all to regulate anything WITHIN the states, ONLY interstate commerce falls under their ageis......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't wait for this one to go to the Supreme Court.......Montana will clean the feds clocks as they have no right at all to regulate anything WITHIN the states, ONLY interstate commerce falls under their ageis......

They may or they may not. Right now, the law of the land on the 10th Amendment is Wickard v Filburn, where SCOTUS held that growing wheat on your own farm for consumption by your family affects interstate commerce for wheat in that you don't have to buy other people's product.

 

A really scary decision from FDR's hayday.

 

I don't think that applies to guns, but expect it to come up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sideliner

Sounds great on paper. My question is what major gun manufacturer is going to only manufacture his products in a state if they can only be sold in that state. Looks like this would create a gun shortage and drive up already sky high prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Federal government gets VERY creative when defending the right to regulate under the Commerce Clause. The wheat farming example is just one of many.

 

The Commerce Clause does not simply affect final assembly or final products, it affects all inputs. If ANY input into the guns came from anywhere other than Montana, they could regulate the entire manufacturing process and sale of the gun.

 

Under current Supreme Court precedent, if the washer holding a bolt in place in the machine that bores out the barrel of the rifle contains steel that was made from coal that happened to be mined in West Virginia, the Commerce Clause applies and they can regulate the entire process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am proud of Montana. The Rest of the states that believe in the second amendment need to draw the same line. Being bullied around by them is going too far! They forgot all about the term "By the people!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...