Posted on 02/16/2005 1:26:49 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
HELENA -- Lawmakers in the Montana House of Representatives collectively thumbed their noses at the federal government Monday by approving two bills exempting guns from federal regulations and driver's licenses from national standardization requirements.
The bills by Reps. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, and Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, do different things but are driven by the same concern: the erosion of personal liberties by the federal government. Koopman said Monday his gun bill, House Bill 366, would inspire a home-grown industry of gun-makers who produce firearms to be sold in Montana. It also sends a message reaffirming states' rights.
"In that regard, this bill really has positive consequences, I believe, beyond the firearms industry itself," he said.
Rice is sponsoring HB 304, which would prevent the state from cooperating with the federal government in establishing nationwide standards for noncommercial driver's licenses.
Federal standards, she said, amount to a national ID card. Critics fear that such standards will lead to the government tracking its citizens.
There was virtually no debate about the bill before lawmakers voted 94-6 to pass it, with a third and final vote expected today.
Congress last year required nationwide standards for driver's licenses, fearing terrorists were using the nation's cornucopia of license styles to skirt security at airports.
Montana already meets those standards, according to Dean Roberts of the motor vehicle division of the Montana Department of Justice.
But there are now two proposals before Congress that go beyond what the state puts on its driver's licenses. They would, for example, mandate states produce licenses resistant to tampering and counterfeiting.
If Montana ignores those standards -- as the bill requires -- then residents here wouldn't be able to use the driver's licenses as a form of ID when boarding commercial airplanes, or use them to pass any sort of federal-required identification.
"To the average citizen, that means you are not going to get on an airplane," Roberts said.
The bill was limited to noncommercial licenses because failure to comply with commercial license requirements would mean losing federal highway funds, he said.
It also makes it illegal to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, which currently isn't prohibited under state law.
Koopman's HB 366 would exempt guns made in Montana from federal regulation under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, as long as the guns remain inside the state.
Rep. Tim Dowell, D-Kalispell, criticized it as aiding terrorism. He noted that law enforcement officers used gun regulations to link the Washington D.C.-area sniper shootings.
Terrorists "can come to Montana, they can buy one of these weapons, go on a reign of terror, and there would be no way to track them down," he said.
He also questioned the logic of the state exempting itself from federal law.
"That's pretty cool, maybe we should say we aren't subject to the income tax," he said.
Dowell's complaints were dismissed as "crazy emotionalism" by Rep. Ed Butcher, R-Winifred. In the end, 73 lawmakers voted to move the bill forward, and afterward there was scattered applause on the House floor.
A third and final vote is expect today. If both bills pass their third vote, then they will move on to the Senate.
Irritate? No just stimulate. I irritate by what I say.
There is no "right" of a criminal to possess firearms nor one of mentally ill people. Nor of those who would and have picked up arms against the USA. The second and the first are not Absolutes allowing everyone to possess any destructive device or say anything at anytime.
The People of Montana nor those of any other state cannot decide which federal laws are worthy of their acceptance. Such a decision is out of their hands unless the amendment process is followed. Maybe you see some hitherto unknown phrase in the Constitution which says "Oh, any law can be ignored if it fails to pass your personal constitutional litmus test."
Any law believed to be unconstitutional can only be challenged through the courts whether you like it or not.
State officials do swear and oath to defend the Constitution and what that document means is not left to their individual whims. George Wallace had no constitutional right to prevent Black students from attending state colleges not matter what delusion he was laboring under at the time. A delusion which passed when he recanted and for which he was forgiven. HE was man enough to admit he was wrong.
Montana has every right to challenge any fedlaw it wishes but it only has ONE legitimate venue to do so and that is through the courts. States do this all the time as was anticipated by our Founders.
Well, you try.
It is like throwing a steak into a tank of sharks not much required to start a feeding frenzy.
Fedgov only has one legitimate venue to expand it's enumerated powers - through amendment. Playing nice is a two way proposition.
Sounds like a pretty good definition of "trolling".
I agree with that.
Not at all.
Well, your opinion isn't subject to majority approval, and vice versa.
Why would I want it to be so?
Did I say you did?
Pardon me for believing your post was intended to have some relevence.
Nope. Not in the mood for pardoning trolls today. Justshutupandgetoverit.
Trolls don't support FR. Do you?
Trolls troll. It's what they do, regardless of whatever else they do or don't do.
I gather you speak from experience and also DON'T support FR.
You gather quite badly.
This thread has officially ended with your decision to replace lack of knowledge with sophmoric attempts to insult.
Isn't that special. If you think you been abused, you know where the button is.
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.