Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law-(DARES Obama To Challenge it!)

Gather ^ | 5-5-09 | George W.

[tcrlaf]

The state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY.

The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana . The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal - confiscation of privately owned firearms.

Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch.

Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama's face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Important Points - If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA , the very document that empowers the USA .

Silencers made in Montana and sol in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.

Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back.

Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.

There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana . Way to go Montana !

[gundog]

Might have to make Montana a future destination...

I'm sure Ted Turner, Tom Brokaw, and David Letterman would be happy to return their mega-ranches to their "rightful owners,"

[Atlas Sneezed]

Because my googling found no traditional new reports on this, I wondered if it was an Internet myth. I went to the Montana Legislature site, an found the bill (HB 246), and verified that it’s current status is “became law.” Click the status link at bottom left of this page:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

[mysterio]

since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines.

But the drug warriors told me that Wickard v Filburn changed all of that and the government can regulate anything it wants.

[An.American.Expatriate]

You are simply not seeing the Montana law for what it truly means.

No. Im just not gett all excited about it until I see that there is more to it than just "words". Are the majority of the people of Montana, or any other state for that matter, REALLY that fed up that they are willing to resort to armed rebellion?

I just don't have that much faith to believe it is so.

[Red Steel]

The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts.

This will pretty much stop the feds if Montana is serious in enforcing their new gun laws.

[bamahead]

Bookmarking. Got this one yesterday:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2244690/posts

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Gun manufacturers will be moving into Montana, sell their wares to Montanans and send the rest out of state for sale. Great idea.

[Two Kids' Dad]

Okay, you’ve officially confused me. What’s up with the dental floss thing?

Thanks in advance.

[walsh]

There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana

Yes indeed. In the hands of terrorists, crackpots, murders, drug dealers and other scum.

Thank God for Montana /sarc

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Thank God for Montana /sarc

OK Mr. gun control!

[Big_Harry]

My only concern is how to get to Montana from North Commilina once martial law is declared.

[WOBBLY BOB]

send some of those grizzlie here to MN...the cold theory isn’t working.

[guido911]

We’re working on it.

[DBrow]

“Yes indeed. In the hands of terrorists, crackpots, murders, drug dealers and other scum.”

Yeah, a serial number would make them flee like roaches under a kitchen light!

[publiusF27]

Stewart prevailed in the 9th Circuit - just one step below SCOTUS - going so far as to affirm that a convicted felon could make and own home-made machineguns, based solidly on the 2nd Amendment.

No, the original 9th Circuit opinion explicitly said that Stewart's 2nd amendment claim was rejected based on the then-current 9th Circuit "collective rights" interpretation of that amendment. He won because the 9th Circuit said that a homegrown machine gun for personal use is outside of the commerce clause authority. Also, the 9th Circuit AFFIRMED his conviction for felon in possession. Here is the last paragraph from that opinion:

[9] Finally, Stewart argues that the Second Amendment guarantees him the right to possess machineguns, as well as the right to possess firearms generally despite his former fel- ony conviction—as charged in count one of Stewart’s indict- ment. We have held that the Second Amendment “was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession.” Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, there is no Second Amendment limitation on “legislation regulating or prohibit- ing the possession or use of firearms.” Id. Stewart’s Second Amendment argument must therefore fail. We reverse Stew- art’s conviction for machinegun possession under section 922(o) as an unlawful extension of Congress’s commerce power and affirm his conviction for possession of firearms by a felon. AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

I agree that the legal interpretation of the commerce clause should be revisited, and that giving up is for losers, but think that people should understand that if they attempt to cross the feds on this one, they might just lose in court like Stewart and Raich before them.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

I seemed to have missed the part where the Montana Governor (D) ‘dared Obama to challenge it’. Where is that part at?

[frogjerk]

I have always thought of moving to a ranch out in Montana somewhere...Sounds better and better by the day.

[2harddrive]

Just remove Exception 4, which not only bans machine guns, but also shotguns! And besides, I like machine guns!

[mojitojoe]

WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s about darn time the states started exercising their rights. Lots of land in Montana. If enough people move there they will be a force to be reckoned with when elections roll around every 4 years.

[Jeffrey_D.]

Whoa . . .I haven’t heard that in a long time. Must locate my record!!!

BTW, how do you cook your rabbit?

Yea, I had to look .....