Montana opts out of Federal Gun Controls

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law

I mean REVOLUTIONARY. The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. 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.

Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Important Points – 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 their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.

Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.

Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back.

Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.

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.

Discussion – Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA. The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same with the USA. Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not.

http://www.atv.info/article.cfm?id=842

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Utah legislators eye Montana gun law

SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah lawmakers are considering following Montana's lead and claiming state's rights in the war over gun control.

The Montana Legislature passed and its governor signed into law a measure making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations. That means they're exempt from things like background checks, licensing and registration.

Several Utah lawmakers want to do the same thing here. They say President Barack Obama and the Congress are anti-gun and will infringe on states' rights.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, tells the Salt Lake Tribune he or another Utah lawmaker will introduce a similar measure next year.

Rep. Ken Sumsion, R-American Fork, told the Tribune he wishes he'd thought of it and would support such a measure "in a heartbeat."

But some legislators, like Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck, D-Salt Lake City, have reservations. They say Montana's law is expected to face legal challenges and they don't want the same thing to happen in Utah.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553

[MrsCat 6]

just f-ing great. Now hubby will want us to move to Montana. . . . . . sigh.

[DEDixon 39]

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.

[lostinblue 1,989]

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.

[scandal 951]

The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law

Text of the legislation: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

According to this it has received 3rd reading but is not yet law.

According to this it already has been signed by the Governor and is law.

In any event, the constitutional basis of the legislation is an activist interpretation of the Ninth and Tenth amendments. This is on very shaky legal ground since mainstream interpretation of these amendments has historically ceded to Congress the right to make any law they wish that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution - and that includes gun control legislation. If it does become law it is almost certainly going to be challenged on constitutional grounds and I would lay odds it gets overturned. Still, it would make for a very good Supreme court case should it eventually get that far and be put on the docket. Definitely one to keep an eye on.

[Ban Hammer 13,354]

just f-ing great. Now hubby will want us to move to Montana. . . . . . sigh.

and the benefit for you is - a lot closer to canada for timbits.

[Nagishkaw 510]

just f-ing great. Now hubby will want us to move to Montana. . . . . . sigh.

I might be moving to Montana soon

just to raise me up a crop of dental floss

raising it up

waxing it down...

in a little white box that I can sell up town..........

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

just f-ing great. Now hubby will want us to move to Montana. . . . . . sigh.

I might be moving to Montana soon

just to raise me up a crop of dental floss

raising it up

waxing it down...

in a little white box that I can sell up town..........

Zappa!

"No. No. That is the walking beat. Dance to those funny little notes he is singing..."

[peejay 327]

I read recently that Texas is looking into doing the same as Montana and Utah.

From what I can understand of the issue is that guns manufactured within a state and sold within the state are supposedly exempt from federal regulation because they are not engaged in interstate commerce that would put them in federal jurisdiction. I'll leave it up to the law dawgs to determine that legality.

As Tip O'Neal once said, "All politics are local". The more localized the laws and regulation, the more attuned it is to the People it most effects.

Edited May 9, 2009 by peejay

[Mark&Steph 0]

I love how the first few paragraphs of the first article sound like they are written by a commentator from WWE Smackdown or something.

[stangguy 0]

The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law

Text of the legislation: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

According to this it has received 3rd reading but is not yet law.

According to this it already has been signed by the Governor and is law.

In any event, the constitutional basis of the legislation is an activist interpretation of the Ninth and Tenth amendments. This is on very shaky legal ground since mainstream interpretation of these amendments has historically ceded to Congress the right to make any law they wish that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution - and that includes gun control legislation. If it does become law it is almost certainly going to be challenged on constitutional grounds and I would lay odds it gets overturned. Still, it would make for a very good Supreme court case should it eventually get that far and be put on the docket. Definitely one to keep an eye on.

The 9th and 10th ammendments aren't the important issues with this legislation, it is the interstate commerce clause of the constititution. The interstate commerce clause is what gives congress much of the power it currently exerts over firearms. The Federal Firearm's act of 1934 derives all of its power from the interstate commerce clause. Also interesting is that the interstate commerce clause is also the source for the power behind the civil rights act. Without the interstate commerce clause the civil rights act would have no impact on private business.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law

Text of the legislation: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

According to this it has received 3rd reading but is not yet law.

According to this it already has been signed by the Governor and is law.

In any event, the constitutional basis of the legislation is an activist interpretation of the Ninth and Tenth amendments. This is on very shaky legal ground since mainstream interpretation of these amendments has historically ceded to Congress the right to make any law they wish that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution - and that includes gun control legislation. If it does become law it is almost certainly going to be challenged on constitutional grounds and I would lay odds it gets overturned. Still, it would make for a very good Supreme court case should it eventually get that far and be put on the docket. Definitely one to keep an eye on.

The 9th and 10th ammendments aren't the important issues with this legislation, it is the interstate commerce clause of the constititution. The interstate commerce clause is what gives congress much of the power it currently exerts over firearms. The Federal Firearm's act of 1934 derives all of its power from the interstate commerce clause. Also interesting is that the interstate commerce clause is also the source for the power behind the civil rights act. Without the interstate commerce clause the civil rights act would have no impact on private business.

Hmmm...so you are saying that if this measure passes Constitutional muster, then before the Feds could bring an action under a variety of Federal statutes, then the Feds would have to necessarily show an interstate concern in each case, and will no longer have that presumption going in. Interesting. Very interesting. I can see a lot decisions falling by the wayside, since the Commerce Clause was the foot in the door, and if that door gets slammed shut, we will be rewriting the Federal-State compact.

[stangguy 0]

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.

[Danno 1,228]

Just over 100 days in office and we see the start of a realignment of power across the land.

This Obama thing might work out ok after all.