Posted on 05/11/2009 8:04:29 AM PDT by Sasparilla
The tentacles have been cut off the Federal gun regulation octopus in the Big Sky State. The gun law is a gloves off slap in the face of the Federal Government and gun control groups. The Bradys are apoplectic once again. Montana exercised its 10th Amendment state sovereignty as the Governor signed a law that exempts guns, accessories such as magazines, silencers, and ammunition made in the state of Montana from all Federal firearms regulation. The guns and ammunition can't leave the state of Montana, and all guns made there must have "Made In Montana" stamped on them. There are no background checks, no serial numbers, and no paperwork.
The state believes that since the Montana made guns don't cross state lines, then they are immune to all Federal Interstate commerce law's regulation. The state believes that just as the second amendment's "well regulated" militia, doesn't refer to the National Guard, which was created a hundred or so years after the second Amendment was written, regulation of interstate commerce doesn't apply because nothing travels interstate between the states. Montanans believe that when the State was admitted to the Union that the Second Amendment was a contract between the State, The people, and the United States and that it guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
The Montana firearms industry isn't big. There are just a few specialty gun makers there, and a few that make western re-creations. But, of course the implications are huge. Alaska and Texas are considering similar legislation. Colonel Travis would be proud of Texas. The state will go and further will arrest any Federal agents in Montana who try to enforce Federal gun law over Montana made guns and ammo.
Losing any power is not in politician's blood, especially in the Obama administration. This law...
(Excerpt) Read more at secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com ...
Big Sky Bump...
Does anyone remember Viki Weaver ?
A farmer once thought that a few acres of grain that he grew for personal consumption didn’t count as “interstate commerce”.
The Supreme Court showed him the error of his ways in no time.
Unfortunately.
I see a repeat of this odious reasoning.
The manufacture of guns in Montana will reduce the demand for guns manufactured elsewhere, and will not be tolerated.
Unfortunately.
I see a repeat of this odious reasoning.
The manufacture of guns in Montana will reduce the demand for guns manufactured elsewhere, and will not be tolerated.
we are on the cusp of a civil war. If the feds, the supremes or whoever try to take away basic rights it will be time that Jefferson spoke off to refresh the tree of liberty....
The Big Sky state has given the big middle finger salute to the feds.
Way to go Montana !!!!!
We’ve now set the stage for a solid “keep” challenge for RKBA: a native Montanan buys a “made in Montana” item (suppressor or SBR if they really want to stir things up), then moves - taking the item with him - to another state which by local law has no problem with him owning it.
Now I would LOVE to see the Montana state and local police start arresting federal agents when they try to enforce these laws, with a few (dozen) extra cracks of the baton because they were “resisting”. Then give the same treatment to any federal judge that would approve these warrants. That would be a day to celebrate!
It is now only a matter of where the first actual shots will be fired. They have already been figuratively fired.
However this turns out I think you've pointed out the most valuable part of it. Anything that promotes a general attitude of suspicion and contempt for the leviathan federal government we now have is a good thing.
Speaking for myself, I've pretty much learned my lesson(s) over the past two decades, and even if 'conservatives' take the federal reins back, I'll never trust (or respect) it again. This isn't to say that the local yokels are any more 'virtuous' either, but they might be a little easier to watch and control.
“A farmer once thought that a few acres of grain that he grew for personal consumption didn’t count as “interstate commerce.”
Wickard v. Filburn, 1942
The effect of that decision is that Congress may regulate a purely local activity if the cumulative effect of such activitiy is that it would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
What is the likelihood that this will be overturned in the near future?
I don’t know - some states have no problem with MGs, SBRs,
SBSs, sound suppressors, etc as long as they are held in accordance with Federal laws, and say so in their statues.
Taking an item across state lines to such a state would invite trouble unless the states were to reword their
law such that the items in question were to be unconditionally permitted with reference to Federal law.
“without reference to Federal Law”
Some states have no problem with those, and don’t even say federal compliance is required.
Vicki Weaver didn't have state and local law enforcement backup.
The issue is that there is no natural nor Constitutionally-clear dividing line between “substantial” and “unsubstantial”. And the feds like it that way.
Absolutely. What a horrible thing to have happened.
Way to go Mr.Reno!
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.