Posted on 06/16/2009 1:23:16 PM PDT by neverdem
An expanded federal role prompts declarations of state sovereignty. Montana goes further with a gun bill defying U.S. firearm restrictions. The goal: Keep Washington on its side of the fence.
Reporting from Bozeman, Mont. — Frustrated by the expanded power of Washington, a growing number of state lawmakers are defying the federal government and passing legislation aimed at rolling back the reach of Congress and President Obama.
While many measures are symbolic ones declaring the sovereignty of states, some Westerners are taking more dramatic steps. One Utah lawmaker wants to limit federal law enforcement in his state. In Montana, legislators enacted a bill that flagrantly ignores federal firearm restrictions, hoping to force a constitutional showdown.
Supporters of the bill want the Supreme Court to eliminate gun controls and, eventually, curtail Washington's ability to set policy on a wide range of issues, including education, civil rights, law enforcement and land use.
"It's about states' rights," said state Rep. Joel Boniek, an independent-turned-Republican from nearby Livingston, who introduced the bill. "Guns are just the vehicle."
The Montana Firearms Freedom Act seeks to exempt from federal regulation any firearm, gun component or ammunition made and kept within the state's borders. The legislation, signed by Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, becomes law Oct. 1, though federal officials will likely...
--snip--
In just the last few months, legislatures in five states -- Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Dakota -- have passed resolutions asserting their sovereignty and asking the federal government to "cease and desist" from meddling in their business. Similar measures are pending in about two dozen other states, including seven out West.
--snip--
"As an abstract legal matter, it's perfectly plausible," Eugene Volokh, a UCLA expert on constitutional law, said of Montana's case. "But it's very unlikely to succeed in today's legal climate."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
So do a lot of us in the eastern states.
The LA Times has so much space to fill....larger fonts help with that. Where there is a lack of substance, there are larger fonts.
Yes, northeast!
Even some liberals see the dangers going on with guns ... . As a conservative, I bug them about it.
'Bout damned time! I would think that most states want the same thing. The one thing inhibiting their protestations is Federal Government largess. And, I have no doubt that states under Democrat control can be purchased for a price.
After reading my family history, the result of the last limitation led to Johnson's Army.
If you want the Federal Govt. out of your business, don’t take Federal money. When I was in high school in the 1960s, we had soft drink machines, and candy machines in the cafeteria. Then our school began taking state money, and the state ordered all the vending machines out of the school. The principal complained that the state govt. shouldn’t be dictating what they should do. But once they took the money, they were at the state’s mercy.
It will only mean something if the people in those states stand up to the feds and tell them to go to hell. When the feds overrule the Montana law, citizens must tell the feds to stuff it and begin wearing guns. After all, does any state demand a license before we are permitted to practice free speech? Attend a Lutheran Church? Then why are we required to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon?
I think I'm going to move there. I've been hummin and hawwin' about it for a while now.
Supporters of the bill want the Supreme Court to eliminate gun controls and, eventually, curtail Washington's ability to set policy on a wide range of issues, including education, civil rights, law enforcement and land use.Ah yes, the old leftist canard that "states' rights" is code for racism.
"It's about states' rights," said state Rep. Joel Boniek, an independent-turned-Republican
In view of what’s happening with currency inflation, the states need to be considering printing stockpiles of their own currency (tied to some commodity, like oil, gas, gold, etc,) in the event that the USD hyperinflation. It would be nice to have something to fall back on than large gold coins...a lot easier for the states’ populations to handle.
If there is a chance of preserving liberty, this is it. So long as people and capital can freely move between states, a renewed move toward more state independence will reverse America’s decay. California, in addition to New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, and most (other) northeastern states will hemorrhage the productive and attract more parasites. Segregation along political lines, at the state level, will put into glaring contrast the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of so-called “progressivism” (glorified compulsory parasitism), and enormous pressure will be placed on the bastions of leftism to abandon their dystopian goals.
Leftists understand this, and call the process “downward harmonization”. Some groups even agitate for global political governance solely to blunt the (weak - because of restrictions on movement of people and capital) force of downward harmonization acting between nations. This is a fight the left cannot afford to lose, so ground will not come easily.
“a growing number of state lawmakers are defying the federal government and passing legislation aimed at rolling back the reach of Congress and President Obama”
On the way home today I thought of a question that needs to be asked.
Why wasn’t this power grab loophole in the Constitution not plugged up long ago, and will the Feds fight the states?
I have heard since 1976 that a republic/democracy lasts 200 years. Why haven’t we learned from history to correct the foundational cracks in this political philosophy?
It seems a little late for preventive maintenance.
Seems this P(uppet)OTUS, having compared himself to Lincoln, who brought the states together after the war, is doing the exact opposite.
This, indeed, is THE chance of preserving liberty.
Any “rebellion” that doesn’t use the legitimacy of the state governments will be “put down” by the US military.
An equivalent rebellion against the fedgov by a state, backed by the same patriots as in the above scenario,
would cause the military to pause and many (oathkeepers) would refuse to enforce the federal dictates.
“As an abstract legal matter, it’s perfectly plausible,” Eugene Volokh, a UCLA expert on constitutional law, said of Montana’s case. “But it’s very unlikely to succeed in today’s legal climate.”
This is the tragedy. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and specific, enumerated powers are now considered and “abract legal matter” with little chance of success in “today’s legal climate.”
Speaks volumes as to how far we have fallen.
I think you’ll be interested in this one.
I don't think that's really a fair summation. Montana isn't ignoring the federal laws, they're declaring that they're unConstitutional. And they're not "hoping" to force a Constitutional showdown, they're just trying to get the feds to stay within their enumerated powers. If the feds did that, there would be no need for any showdown. Now as far as what they'll probably get...
That would be a fair statement if it weren't our money in the first place. They're buying OUR freedoms from OUR legislators with OUR money. The fact that they're offering money is a tacit admission that they're poking in stuff they have no Constitutional business in. They fact that they have money to offer for things that are beyond their Constitutional mandate is a tacit admission they overtaxed us. I've said on numerous threads that getting out of the programs is only half the battle, maybe the easy half. Most of the programs are "voluntary" anyway. The difficult half is keeping the money they would otherwise use to try to poke their nose improperly into YOUR business.
Then there is the second class of improper federal laws that don't come with money attached. That's more the class that are being discussed here, and are just as pernicious and evil as the "voluntary" paid ones.
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.