Posted on 05/06/2009 7:24:33 AM PDT by tcrlaf
Go Ronny Barrett!!!!!!!! You da man!
I believe in the case of meat sales state law prevails till it crosses state lines, then it must be USDA approved.
Excerpt from June, 1983 speech by the late Congressman Larry McDonald in which he described the problems that now overwhelm the decent folk here.
He also offered the solution: Less government, more responsibility and, with God’s help, a better world.
That, BTW, is the motto of the John Birch Society.
Gee, looks like those crazy Birchers WERE right! We shall pay a heavy price because so few listened let alone ACTED while there was still time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hHKJqMk704
The *point* is that Montana says thats not valid and is a dishonest unconstitutional interpretation of the commerce clause. And Montana says “ok, your move, what you going to do about it Kenyan?”
If the feds push, Montana says their next move is to vote to seceed.
There are a couple of Sharps plants up there. My brother called me from somewhere in Montana last week while he was driving his original “Shiloh” Sharps over to the company to have it restored. There are also several good gunsmiths and barrel makers in the state.
“Not to pee on your parade, but Gonzales v. Raich will likely be the precedent the government uses to kill this idea ....”
You are probably right.
Not the least among the parallels of Obama with FDR is the view that the Constitution is an unjustified restriction on government power.
The “interstate commerce clause” concept arose from the Supreme Court’s submission to FDR under threat of stacking the court with 11, 13, 15, 17 or whatever odd number of members required to get unconstitutional laws legitimized.
More federal laws - and agencies - are now dependent upon the “IC clause” than are dependent upon the actual constitution for their existence.
Maybe so, but then Montana is ignoring years and years of accepted pecedent and law. And, while I AGREE - it is doubtful they can prevail in todays environment. These types of challanges need to be made when the decisions are first handed down - not years - decade or centuries later!!
Then we have precedent to work from! Lawful product, feds don’t interfere until it crosses state lines.
Legs,
This one’s for you!
Has there ever been US states in recent times that have decided to go against the federal government? What administration until this one has triggered such moves?
Nope, its not going to be revisited by Obamas court. It’s going to be revisited by STATES who are drawing a line. MANY people in some red states are now demanding that the slide into dictatorship will go no further.
Its foolish to think you can point at precedents in a law book and say “thats that”. King George tried that too, but in the end just law and government depends upon the consent of the governed people.
If the federals want to reassert their dominance over Montana, against the clear will of the people of Montana, we will see who prevails. And it might not be in a courtroom. Say the feds decided Montana was in rebellion and moved forcefully to put the heel on them. Is it really that simple? How would other states like Texas react if they saw a brutal crackdown on Montana? Its a very complicated calculus, and in hard truth, Obama is not too intelligent. He could screw this up royally if he isnt careful.
There is clearly reason to worry here, simply because the law is being passed.
Really wish Idaho was too but haven’t heard. Idaho legislature is still in overtime right now over gas taxes so probably won’t see anything till next session if at all.
bang.
Also the reason for silencers being illegal is pure emotion, like most weapons law. They seem scary in movies. A similar thing with knives. We can’t have switchblades today in the age of the AK, because of “West Side Story” in the 50s. The Sharks and Jets scared people BAD.
Oh for God’s sake. And I just bought 40 acres in Nevada to retire on!! Oh well, it’s in the middle of septic, solar, well for water and no real roads country.
I believe that the only true silent weapon is a firearm designed with a silencer function as an integral part of the weapon, not as an add on to the end of a barrel.
I used to shoot a bit with a firing device back in the late 70s - I believe that it was named an M1A firing device, and that was truly silenced.
I still have the manual back in a closet - I'll have to look it up.
Maybe next year!
We can argue that Federal law does not apply in this intrastate situation. We can then argue in the alternative that under any interpretation of the Second Amendment the state is free to provide for the armament of its militia.
I am hoping and advocating for other states that see tyranny coming will follow suit.
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.