Posted on 05/06/2009 7:24:33 AM PDT by 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 !
at the time, I made the follwing comment:
"As the court explains, tomatoes which are grown at home and possessed for personal use are never more than an instant from the interstate market and this is so whether or not the possession is for nutritional use or lawful use under the laws of a particular state."
I simply substituted tomotoes for marijuana.
I can EASILY see this being used to stike down that law.
Further - it was not the State of California which was sued by the feds - it was an individual. This will be the case again here.
I'm born and raised in Miami and we have one hell of a gun friendly state. Witness that we were the first of the states to pass SHALL ISSUE ccw permits and this led the ccw revolution. I know that Alabama and Washington State get into a snit over this saying they had shall issue laws way before Florida, but nonetheless, ours is the legislation that is used as a template for other states currently. Florida led the way in amending Castle Doctrine laws to extend to outside the home, to preclude prosecution by overzealous prosecutors politically motivated and to prevent the estates of dead perps from suing the law abiding in civil court. I admit that Charlie leaves a lot to be desired, but we have a pretty rock solid legislature and it could always be worse.
And make no mistake about it, THIS is the reason the gun-grabbers made them illegal and want to keep them illegal -- has nothing to do with crime prevention (effective silencers are so easy to make out of common items available at any hardware store, that anyone who wants to murder somebody quietly with a gun, will have no obstacle to doing so). The object is to make it as hard as possible for people to practice shooting, and few people will do it, and to give anti-gun neighbors an avenue for legally stopping people from practicing shooting on a simple "nuisance" or "disturbing the peace" basis, avoiding any pesky constitutional issues.
Tennessee has very similar legislation in its current session and just passed resturant concealed carry out of a conferance committee. Ronny Barrett is pushing it.
- Frank Zappa (Over-Nite Sensation - 1973)
10th amendment.
Let Obama eat $h!t and bark at the moon.
let him do something about it and millions of partriots will fill states that will secede.
Also helps if the projectile is subsonic.
Feds define manufacture as 80% completion of the receiver.
Many people build their own handguns and rifles from cast or forged receiver blanks that don’t have all the holes drilled and tapped.
They take it over the 80% (I have no idea how the BATFE would figure that out), so they’re considered the manufacturer.
Even importers of receivers, like Springfield Armory, import the unfinished receivers (Brazil) and finish the work in the US.
bttt
the fascinating (and unspoken) part of it is....the Governor of Montana is a DEMOCRAT! This showdown will look like the last ten minutes of Enemy of the State....
It might be a good time for certain investors to either establish or relocate a gun manufacturing facility to Montana. Gun-friendly laws, create jobs, local market, perhaps get some tax breaks, etc.
Here ya go.
Also helps if the projectile is subsonic.
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. The case was appealed to SCOTUS, which without discussion remanded the case for review in light of Raich (note that SCOTUS did not reverse Stewart, it just said Raich had to be taken into account).
Raich ruled that any action reducing demand in an illegal interstate market fit application of the Commerce Clause. This, of course, is absurd and must be revisited - what better revisiting than a state demanding independence of intra-state activity exercising a Constitutionally-protected right? Presumably Montana, as a state, can argue better and with more weight than a terminally ill grandmother growing a half-dozen plants for personal use.
Understanding these cases is indeed important. Doing so facilitates understanding the way to success; doing so does/should NOT be grounds for giving up.
I don't think so. Democrats are crooked, corrupt, dirty low down snakes, and that is a Democrat in Montana remember. I guess we'll see soon enough.
while we have some of the best gun laws in the country here in FL we do not think for one minute that this Gov Crist would do anything like this
Cool. And the Governor there is a Democrat! :)
“only has the power to control commerce across state lines”
So how come when I go down the street to my doctor they control medical care - that I never cross state lines with?
is that a real poncho...i mean
Is that a mexican poncho
Or is that a sears poncho?
Hmmm...no foolin
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.