Montana opts out of Federal Gun Controls

[scandal 951]

Unfortunately there is allready court precendent covering this area. Because large production in Montana of the firearms that would be covered under the Federal Firearms act could potentially cross state lines, the entire law could be ruled invalid because of the "dormant commerce clause" which essentially means that state or local regulations can't conflict with congressional interstate commerce power. However, several members of the current court are adverse to the way the interstate commerce clause has been used as a blanket to allow regulation of several different things that aren't directly commerce related. Justice Alito even challenged the applicablity of the commerce clause to the Federal Firearms Act as an appelate judge. So should this be challeneged by the federal government it will be an interesting thing to see.

That this has the potential to be an interesting case. Assuming it becomes law, assuming it is challenged, assuming it goes all the way to the Supreme Court... that's a lot of assumptions...

I agree that much of the modern exertion of domestic federal power derives from the interstate commerce provision. I am by no means a constitutional expert, but my understanding is that this exertion of power has withstood many court challenges (as you indicate in your opening remark, that there is substantial court precedent). This would seem to be established law.

From my reading of the Montana legislation they listed Amendments IX and X right at the top of the Bill (Section 2, first 2 paras) intentionally to base the legitimacy of the law on those amendments and to overcome this established precedent. I know that is a current theory of many staunch conservatives (Ron Paul etc) that favor a curbing of interstate commerce powers based upon the IX & X amendments. Hence I'm surprised at your earlier comments that you don't think they're the salient part of this Bill. To my untrained eye, I thought that was really the noteworthy part.

[stangguy 0]

It is law, it was signed by the governor on April 15. It will see a challenge sooner or later because of the subject matter. If it isn't challenged by the federal government soon I would expect every "red" state and a few "blue" states to pass similar legislation and possibly extend the topic to other areas including drugs. The way the the bill is written mirrors the dissenting opinion of It would be a case involving a state, giving the supreme court original jurisdiction so I would expect quick resolution. However, a challenge might be delayed because of Souter's retirement. Souter is one of the current justices that has a very liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. If he was to be replaced by someone with a more "constitutionalist" stance on the clause the federal government could lose significant power.

They knowingly wrote the law stating that it only pertained to firearms, munitions, and accesories manufactured in Montana for sale and use in Montana. That seeks to preempt any authority the federal government would have via the interstate commerce clause. You have to establish that the federal government has no authority before you can argue that you have authority under the 9th and 10th ammendment. The interstate commerce clause is the only source of authority for the federal government over firearms and many other things and the federal courts acknowledes this. Stating the relevance of the 9th and 10th ammendment doesn't make the interstate commerce clause any less powerful it just shows that you have authority where the federal government doesn't. In this case it is probably a way to say that yes, the federal firearms laws are valid, but they don't apply to everything.

While there are several old precendents that would deem this state law in violation of the the congressional commerce powers, the current make up of the supreme court includes 5 justices that aren't all that supportive of those precedents.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It is law, it was signed by the governor on April 15. It will see a challenge sooner or later because of the subject matter. If it isn't challenged by the federal government soon I would expect every "red" state and a few "blue" states to pass similar legislation and possibly extend the topic to other areas including drugs. The way the the bill is written mirrors the dissenting opinion of It would be a case involving a state, giving the supreme court original jurisdiction so I would expect quick resolution. However, a challenge might be delayed because of Souter's retirement. Souter is one of the current justices that has a very liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. If he was to be replaced by someone with a more "constitutionalist" stance on the clause the federal government could lose significant power.

They knowingly wrote the law stating that it only pertained to firearms, munitions, and accesories manufactured in Montana for sale and use in Montana. That seeks to preempt any authority the federal government would have via the interstate commerce clause. You have to establish that the federal government has no authority before you can argue that you have authority under the 9th and 10th ammendment. The interstate commerce clause is the only source of authority for the federal government over firearms and many other things and the federal courts acknowledes this. Stating the relevance of the 9th and 10th ammendment doesn't make the interstate commerce clause any less powerful it just shows that you have authority where the federal government doesn't. In this case it is probably a way to say that yes, the federal firearms laws are valid, but they don't apply to everything.

While there are several old precendents that would deem this state law in violation of the the congressional commerce powers, the current make up of the supreme court includes 5 justices that aren't all that supportive of those precedents.

Justice Thomas may be a question mark as well. My mind is foggy, by I do remember within the last few years Thomas dissenting from the conservatives on an emminent domain issue. Thomas seems to support a stronger role for government, and that is consistent with his history at the EOC. How that would apply to a states rights issue, I am not sure.

[stangguy 0]

Thomas is probably the justice that most supports a limitation of federal power with respect to the commerce clause. He doesn't believe in the "dormant commerce" clause and thinks only things directly involved in commerce can be regulated. He strongly supports going back to the interpretation that earilier courts held where manufacturing, mining, and production are not commerce. In Gonzales vs. Raich he wrote a dissenting opinion saying that private production of marijuana for personal use could not be regulated by the federal government.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Way to go Montana!!

[Danno 1,228]

Q:Would this move from Montana (and possibly others) modify or delay Obama's dreams of banning guns?

[scandal 951]

Q:Would this move from Montana (and possibly others) modify or delay Obama's dreams of banning guns?

A: Obama has nightly dreams of banning guns. Usually they're about 2:30am, during second REM stage, he goes into these fantaorgasmic dreams that involve a three-way with Hillary and Michelle, and every last semi-auto in the nation being handed over to the Taliban.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Montana is a strange state - they used to have some pretty weird laws about drink driving (at one point it was legal to drive with an open container of alcohol in your car).

[Danno 1,228]

Montana is a strange state - they used to have some pretty weird laws about drink driving (at one point it was legal to drive with an open container of alcohol in your car).

Actually there were a number of states where this was legal, back when I moved to NC it was the case as well.

I guess the logic being, a passenger can drink all day and it would not effect the driver.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I could be wrong here - but I think Montana had some pretty high rates of road traffic accidents involving alcohol.

[Kevin and 10]

http://www.wztv.com/newsroom/top_stories/wztv_vid_5694.shtml

Tennessee has introduced the same type of bill.

This is Hope and Change that I can believe in.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I guess, if California can say f$$k you to federal drug laws, Montana can do the same for gun laws. Not sure this is apples to apples, but maybe close to it.

Many people would like to see California leave the union. Come to think of it could you take NY city also.

Yeah, and say goodbye to 20-25% of the country's GDP

[Danno 1,228]

http://www.wztv.com/newsroom/top_stories/wztv_vid_5694.shtml

Tennessee has introduced the same type of bill.

This is Hope and Change that I can believe in.

Yeah, I can get on-board with that Change too.