Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

No one will set up factories to make something that will be sold only within a single state. Definitely one of the stupidiest ideas I’ve heard here at Free Republic and I have been here a while. LOL Good luck!


19 posted on 02/02/2013 8:53:47 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: plain talk

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/

Well, sorry you think so, but several states disagree with you. I suppose you think they are just being stupid, with their stupid ideas.

“Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

“Following initial Montana enactment, clones of the Firearms Freedom Act have subsequently been enacted in Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota, and other clones have been introduced in the legislatures of twenty-some other states.

“The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act

“Plaintiffs filed suit in support of the law, in federal district court, on October 1, 2009. These plaintiffs are the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and MSSA president Gary Marbut. The legal complaint states that Marbut “wishes to manufacture and sell small arms and small arms ammunition to customers exclusively in Montana, pursuant to the MFFA, without complying with the NFA or the GCA, or other applicable federal laws.”

“On September 29, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy dismissed the suit “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.”

“The Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments in MSSA v. Holder are scheduled to be heard by the Ninth Circuit on March 4, 2013, in Portland, Oregon.”

In any event, have a stupid day.


20 posted on 02/02/2013 9:19:02 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: plain talk; All

There are already gun manufacturers in a large number of states. It would take nothing for them to make a limited run of “state” models for sale only in that state.

There is also the possibility of home manufacture, 3D printing, 80% receivers, all of which could manufacture the “firearm” within a state. Barrels, magazines, triggers, sights, stocks, all are not “guns” under federal regulation at present.


22 posted on 02/02/2013 10:08:28 AM PST by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson