Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Montana Firearms Freedom Act" 10TH AMENDMENT
2009 Montana Legislature ^ | January 13, 2009 | 2009 Montana Legislature

Posted on 02/06/2009 6:59:08 PM PST by Idabilly

2009 Montana Legislature

Additional Bill Links PDF (with line numbers)

HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE."

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 7] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7], the following definitions apply:

(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

NEW SECTION. Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

NEW SECTION. Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

NEW SECTION. Section 7. Duties of the attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.

(2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.

NEW SECTION. Section 8. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 7] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 7].

NEW SECTION. Section 9. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

- END -

Latest Version of HB 246 (HB0246.01) Processed for the Web on January 13, 2009 (5:27pm)

New language in a bill appears underlined, deleted material appears stricken.

Sponsor names are handwritten on introduced bills, hence do not appear on the bill until it is reprinted.

See the status of this bill for the bill's primary sponsor.

Status of this Bill | 2009 Legislature | Leg. Branch Home This bill in WP 5.1 | All versions of all bills (WP 5.1 format) Authorized print version w/line numbers (PDF format) [ NEW SEARCH ]

Prepared by Montana Legislative Services (406) 444-3064


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; banglist; montana; staterights; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: Army Air Corps
Thanks AAC. Big Sky Freepers and ALL Montan..., uh well, everybody from Montana should give a big THANK YOU and their support to the sponsor(s) of this bill. As most of us here realize, without the 2nd, there's little hope conservatives would be able to keep the wolves at bay. Under Øbama, they'll be coming for our firearms. In fact, there's already been a bill presented in the House by an ex(?)- black panther from Illinois; one of Øbama's fellow travelers. NONE of our liberties will be off limits for elimination by this crowd.

If our conservative representatives step up and take the lead AND look back at even a small but committed following, there's still hope for our Republic. God be with us.

21 posted on 02/06/2009 9:05:36 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
Maybe we should start a 10th Amendment pinglist.

I agree but it could become cumbersome. It would probably out of necessity need to be restricted to pieces relating to states, etc attempting to reclaim their 10th amendment rights. Otherwise, almost every piece of legislation and regulation coming out of DC would qualify as an abridgment of the 10th.

You can add me if you would like to start one.

22 posted on 02/06/2009 9:45:33 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

I’d like to see Section 7 extended to say that any federal judicial or law enforcement person that tries to enforce a federal law that is being declared non-applicable in this bill can be prosecuted in Montana state court and imprisoned if found guilty. Even so, I’m shocked and thrilled with what IS there.


23 posted on 02/06/2009 10:35:43 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JDoutrider

marker


24 posted on 02/06/2009 11:48:52 PM PST by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

Bookmark


25 posted on 02/07/2009 12:01:13 AM PST by shibumi (By the Authority of Hung Mung, Patron of Chaos and Keeper of The Sacred Chao)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

A little restrictive in the ‘exceptions’ clause, but a good start.


26 posted on 02/07/2009 2:52:56 AM PST by CowboyJay (Stop picking on Porkulus. He's not fat, he's just big-boned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
The natives are getting restless.

Yea, verily... the scent of Hoppes No. 9 is wafting over the land.

27 posted on 02/07/2009 10:30:06 AM PST by Charles Martel ("Endeavor to persevere...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

Montana leading the way against federal infringement.


28 posted on 02/07/2009 12:02:39 PM PST by wastedyears (April 21st, 2009 - International Iron Maiden Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

The federal government doesn’t need justification with the way they’ve been doing things.


29 posted on 02/07/2009 12:05:10 PM PST by wastedyears (April 21st, 2009 - International Iron Maiden Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Ping!
30 posted on 02/07/2009 2:29:37 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

thanks, bfl


31 posted on 02/07/2009 2:56:41 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

What are the chances of this getting passed and signed into law in MT?


32 posted on 02/07/2009 3:04:43 PM PST by SIDENET ("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET

Montana has a long history fighting our Federal Government!!Don’t you remember what they said if the Supreme Court ruled against Gun Owners?

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment’s application, defining that “any person” has the right to bears arms.

That’s the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is “reasonable” and therefore enforceable even given the rights listed by the 2nd Amendment.

U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has asked President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the 2nd Amendment. A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned:

(Story continues below)

“If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General’s line of argument, D.C.’s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ...”

He warned such a precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions if they are considered by a judge to be “reasonable” would place those rights on the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder.

“In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by ‘compelling state interests,’ the 2nd Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail,” said Pratt.

Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson

But officials in Montana, including dozens of state lawmakers as well as Secretary of State Brad Johnson, have joined together in a statement that the U.S. already has determined the application, and 2nd Amendment rights apply to “any person.”

In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.

“The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract,” an announcement from the leaders said.

“A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana’s contract for statehood, but also Montana’s customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case,” said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

The Montana contract is archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution. At the time the then-territory’s “Compact with the United States” was agreed to by Congress, the Montana Constitution included the “right of ‘any person’ to bear arms,” the group said.

“Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the intent of the parties to the contract. A collective rights decision by the court could also call into question the sanctity of contracts, considered to have been a bedrock principle of law for centuries,” the group said.

The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.

Any other determination, they said, would “offend” the Compact, officials said.

“[That] language … simply cannot be respun to somehow mean a right of state government,” they said.

It could not have referred to the National Guard, which wasn’t created until years later, officials said.

“Some speak of a ‘living constitution,’ the meaning of which may evolve and change over time. However, the concept of a ‘living contract,’ one to be disregarded or revised at the whim of one party thereto, is unknown. A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation,” the group said.

Goode earlier wrote Bush that under the perspective being promoted in the District of Columbia, a national ban on all firearms, including hunting rifles, could be considered valid.

Paul Clemen

The government’s position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since “unrestricted” private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment,” Clement wrote in the brief.

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”


33 posted on 02/08/2009 6:42:57 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET

This is a listing of some of the state sovereignty initiatives that are active in legislatures.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1909

There are 25 states with various kinds and types. Oklahoma has one that may pass this year. All these states handle things in different ways. New Hampshire is strongly written and one of the most comprehensive but does not have much chance of passage.

If you go to the homepage of this website, it also has a page that updates progress on some of these bills in different states.


34 posted on 02/08/2009 6:46:38 PM PST by daylilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NonLinear

We elected Joel Boniek froom our district, just north of Yellowstone Park, and he rocks!


35 posted on 02/09/2009 1:03:10 PM PST by Rennes Templar (The Messiah and the Religion of Fleece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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