Replies

WIJG: Actually, P_A_I is in "denial mode," and the State legislators are indeed "having delusions," if they believe a 'commerce clause challenge' is likely to be upheld by the high court & restore gun rights in Montana... ;>)

P_A_I: There you are; --- irrationally arguing that Montana's delusionary legislators are powerless to challenge the NFA of '34.

As I stated previously: I've never claimed "that Montana does not have the power to write a law that contradicts the '34 National Firearms Act's 'interpretation' of the Constitution." I simply indicated that a "commerce clause challenge" is unlikely to be "upheld by the high court & restore gun rights in Montana."

In other words, thank's for proving my point!

;>)

How soon you forget that you were just arguing that Montana does not have the power to write a law that contradicts the '34 National Firearms Act's 'interpretation' of the Constitution. [Your irrationality is showing, kiddo]

Actually, the "irrationality" is entirely yours – I've never claimed "that Montana does not have the power to write a law that contradicts the '34 National Firearms Act's 'interpretation' of the Constitution." You've just posted yet another 'straw man argument'... ;>)

_______________________________________

From the "Constitutional Question" thread, my post #176:

To: Who is John Galt?
Sorry kid, Montana is fully justified in fighting that unacceptable law. -- Their legislators are not having delusions, you are.

Actually, P_A_I is in "denial mode," and the State legislators are indeed "having delusions," if they believe a 'commerce clause challenge' is likely to be upheld by the high court & restore gun rights in Montana... ;>) 173 WiJG

________________________________________

There you are; --- irrationally arguing that Montana's delusionary legislators are powerless to challenge the NFA of '34.

Thank you for confirming you argued just as I said you did.

The words you used at #173 are clear. Your denial is specious.