Posted on 04/08/2009 4:49:44 AM PDT by marktwain
In the wake of the easy passage through the Montana legislature of Montana House Bill 246, Governor Brian Schweitzer's signature is all that is needed to set up a potentially explosive battle between state sovereignty on the one hand, and smothering, centralized federal power on the other.
Montana-made guns may form the basis for a court showdown over states' rights if the governor signs a bill to release some firearms in the state from federal regulation.
The proposed law aims to exempt firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana from federal gun laws. Since the state has few gun laws of its own, the legislation would allow some gunowners and sellers in the state to skirt registration, licensing requirements and background checks entirely. For anyone who believes the federal government can legitimately exercise only the powers explicitly enumerated by the Constitution as being within its purview (in other words, anyone who actually reads the Constitution, and is honest about what it says), there is no debate--the federal government has zero power to regulate arms produced in Montana, and that are kept within the state (rather than sold in interstate commerce, and thus made subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause).
Whether or not Governor Schweitzer will sign the bill is open to question. Although considered a reliably "pro-gun" Democrat, I cannot help but raise an eyebrow over his enthusiastic support of Obama's candicacy, and defense of Obama's position on private gun ownership:
As for Obama, Schweitzer said, “He ain't going to take your gun away. He ain't ever going to take your gun away.” Unless, of course, your gun is an "assault weapon," was purchased via the "gun show loophole," or is not "child-proof."
Whatever the outcome, the people of Montana should soon gain some insight into whether their governor's true loyalty lies with them and the Constitution, or with his party and president.
I would have said to avoid Federal infringements such as registration, licensing requirements and background checks entirely
There's no interstate commerce involved, so the fedgov can go pack sand.
I used to live in Helena, the Capital of Montana. I’ve met Brian Schweitzer. He’s an Obama butt-boy. If Obambi can fire the Chairman of General Motors, he can certainly vanish the Democrat governor of a sparsely populated state.
Montana has a high prevalence of gun ownership, estimated to be 85% of the households. Montana also has the second highest percentage of the adult population who are veterans. The population prefers to be left alone. It will be a very tough state to conquer by force.
If this goes through, gun sales will pick up and people can start enjoying target practice and hunting again. Heck, Montana may see an increase of retirees and a positive impact on their economy.
I'm not sure that's true. Unless the iron and coke was mined in Montana, turned into steel in Montana, and that steel was used to manufacture a firearm in Montana, there's going to be interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court, for better or for worse, has chosen to interpret the interstate commerce clause quite broadly, and if these manufacturers are buying supplies from out of state, that's interstate commerce.
There is no part of the Constitution that has been more egregiously abused than the Federal oversight of interstate commerce. The original intent obviously only applied to preventing states from restricting trade with other states, yet it is now used to justify most every federal action. If regulation of interstate commerce were suddenly restored to its original meaning 80% of the Federal Government would cease to exist.
Good for Montana. As this can be applied to any other product, companies would only have to mark products for in state use only to avoid Federal regulation. New factories might pop up everywhere to conduct final assembly. The red states could cast off the Federal overlord.
Time for a constitutional convention or a uprising
Then by all means let the Federal Government regulate iron, coke, and steel. Those are not guns. If you are going to allow such a broad definition for Federal control of a product, then just start with the air that we breath, as it crosses state lines. As we all breath it, all of our actions must then be controlled by the Feds, yes?
The original intent on Fed control of interstate commerce was to prohibit tariffs and ensure free and open trade. That's it. There was absolutely no intent to allow total regulation of any product or service that might happen to cross a state border.
OK, that sounds like the way to go, then.
“”I’ve met Brian Schweitzer””
Isn’t that the guy whose behavior is so bizarre? Can’t remember where I saw him on TV a couple of months ago but he sure acted strange. I’ll remember just as soon as I post this.
Movin’ to Montana soon.......
I didn’t think he acted any weirder than the average Montanan. From a national perspective, we’re talking far end of the bell curve, though.
Once again, that ship has already sailed.
Worst idea EVER.
With a “Con Con”, everything is up for grabs.
Everything and anything.
You could well end up with no RKBA, no first amendment.
Great for starting a country, but lousy for changing its course.
Yeah, but will you be allowed to take your guns with you?
This may spur a total grassroots industry in Montana. Can you imagine what that would mean? Totally American, manufactured and mined. There would definitely be a lag until the proper alloys and such were made. Even the ammo would take a while. But if the colonials could make guns hundreds of years ago, so could the moderns.
There, fixed!
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.