Skip to comments.Firearms Freedom Act Heads to the Ninth Circuit Court on Appeal
Posted on 12/03/2010 6:50:08 AM PST by marktwain
MISSOULA, MONT. --(Ammoland.com)- Plaintiffs in litigation to validate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA) have appealed an expected but adverse federal district court decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The plaintiffs in MSSA v. Holder include the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and MSSA President Gary Marbut of Missoula.
The MFFA is designed to test the power of Congress to regulate everything without limits under the narrow power given to Congress in the Constitution to regulate commerce among the states.
The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the Commerce Clause. Congress must find some authority among the Constitutions enumerated powers for every action it takes.
Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit MSSA v. Holder on the day the MFFA became effective in Montana, October 1, 2009. Since the MFFA enactment in Montana, the MFFA has been cloned and enacted in seven other states, and FFA bills have been introduced in the legislatures of 20 more states.
In a judgment entered on October 19, 2010, the district court granted the U.S. Motion to Dismiss. It is this judgment that is now appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
MSSA President and plaintiff Gary Marbut commented, Weve known all along that the district court will not provide what we seek, the reversal of a half-century of bad Commerce Clause precedent. We need to get to the U.S. Supreme Court for that. This notice of appeal puts us at the 50-yard line in our quest to get to the Supreme Court it is a big step in the direction we need to go.
Not only has the FFA concept attracted the interest and support of many other states frustrated with an overbearing federal government, but the MSSA v. Holder lawsuit has attracted an unusual, perhaps record, number of amici (amicus curiae, friends of the court). Some qualified observers say theyve never seen a case that has attracted as much amici support at the district court level as this case has. Amici include the State of Utah (also representing several other states), Gun Owners Foundation (Gun Owners of America), the Goldwater Institute of Arizona, the Paragon Foundation of New Mexico, the Weapons Collectors Society of Montana, an amicus group of Montana legislators who supported the MFFA, and another amicus group of non-Montana legislators who sponsored or co-sponsored FFA bills in other states. The State of Montana has also intervened in support of the MFFA. Other amici are expected to enter in support of the MFFA when the lawsuit is argued before Ninth Circuit.
It is totally obvious from the positions of federal participants, both lawyers and judges for the U.S., Marbut commented, that the federal establishment definitely, almost desperately, wishes to prevent this issue from having a trial on merit.
The likely options for the Ninth Circuit are to uphold the judgment of the district court or to overrule the district court and remand the case back to the district court for trial. Regardless of what action is taken by the Ninth Circuit, MSSA v. Holder is certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court only reviews the district court dismissal on appeal to it, the Supreme Court can still rule on the merits of the case since part of the grounds for dismissal is based on merit.
So basically it boils down to Wickard making no sense whatsoever. A common theme in our government lately.
>Think of the economic effect that closing all those agencies will have upon individual states and the entire country if it was all done simultaneously.
It would throw the doors in the public sector wide open; the new activity therein would need manpower to carry out... therefore we can see that there will be a rise in the demand for employees.
Even if they do, there are some old Supreme Court cases finding that Congress has the power to regulate guns if they, or any of their component parts, ever moved in interstate commerce. See Scarborough v. United States (1977) and Barrett v. United States (1976). Hard to say if today's SCOTUS would overrule those cases.
Someone should get an office pool going on how long it will take the 9th Circus to decide the district judge was dead on with his reasoning -- or lack thereof. Then they can all get together and do bong hits and laugh at those silly conservatives actually believing our Constitution means what it says.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
I don’t think I’ve ever told you thanks for posting that link I’ve seen on numerous occasions. It’s a point that everyone should take to heart and try to arrive at a decision BEFORE they come for our guns.
Get some judges who will inform juries that for a conviction they must find that the particular act of the defendant materially interfered with a legitimate exercise of a specific enumerated federal power. Congress may have the authority, via the elastic clause, to restrict actions which interfere with its ability to regulate interstate commerce, but only a jury armed with the particular facts of a case can know whether the particular action did in fact interfere with Congress' authority.
I’m on board for it, but then I was for it decades before it was popular!
I don’t mind them running the streets as long as they are unarmed and powerless... sort of like they want US to be!!!
It will prove to be the most important case in 60 years, no matter which way it goes.
Pray for Scalia’s Thomas’s, Alito’s, Robert’s and Kennedy’s good health.
God bless the folks in Montana and their democrat governor, Schweitzer, who supported and signed the bill. As a native Montanan, I'm proud of all of 'em.
Just imagine the new rules and regulations that other agencies would be putting out to protect their butts from citizens who realize they aren’t functioning with an iota of efficiency.
Doesn’t much matter. If push comes to shove, we can always vote from the rooftops... and include these bureaucraps in that vote, alongside the scumbags who give them their “authority.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.