State prepares to challenge U.S. gun laws [20 others - secession to follow?]

WND ^ | August 25, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[Ron C.]

'This is an issue where the federal government has no business'

Montana statehouse

Supporters of a first-of-a-kind law in Montana that declared weapons or ammunition made and kept in the state were exempt from federal rules are preparing for a court challenge to the federal government's insistence it will regulate those items.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation have formed a strategic alliance with plans to litigate over the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

The bill was passed by the 2009 Montana Legislature and signed into law by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

[Beloved Levinite]

Is their talk of attempting that in PA state gov’t, or is that just your pipe dream?

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

It is just my pipe dream, afaik.

[redstateconfidential]

Properly armed ACORN/Civilian Youth Corps agents from La Raza, MS13,SESI,ACT UP,UAW,Bloods and Crips,Nation of Islam, Greenies, Anarchist/Marxist street protesters...

[A Navy Vet]

"Don't really have time to read each post, and someone may have already made this argument, but it appears to me that since the 2nd Amendment was ratified AFTER Article I, Section 8, then the “Commerce Clause” does not apply, and Congress has NO authority to regulate guns whatsoever."

The issue is about "incorporation" and which Sections and Amendments apply to the Fedgov and which apply also to the individual States. I believe it to be a bogus arguement. There are countless documents that support intent that all Amendments to be applied to the States.

The main arguement is about the words, "Congress shall make no law..." in the 1st Amendment that some think those words and other Amendments only apply to federal government law.

The Founders' papers and debates make it clear that any State that joined the Union is subject to the entire Constitution and any Amendment thereafter to said contract. However, certain USSC rulings since have said otherwise. I consider those rulings null and void.

[A Navy Vet]

"You are vastly underestimating the lengths at which people will go to hold onto power. It may come to exactly that. Some Americans are no different that the Hugo Chavezs' of the world. Power corrupts the thinking of the unprincipled."

You're talking politicians; I'm talking Military personnel who take their Oaths seriously.

[A Navy Vet]

Like I keep saying, nullification. Just ignore the fedgov un-Constitutional dictates and see if DC has the cojones to move on the States.

[A Navy Vet]

"History shows that they often will."

Understood, and I could be wrong, but this a new era. Hell, even China is becoming capitalist. So much for their communist economy. Things change. I trust in our Military not to kill our citizens. I could be naive.

[George from New England]

Think of the boost and new markets for ammo and firearm manufacturers in these states.

[A Navy Vet]

I probably should have said, not wage war against States' citizenry over nullification. I have no doubt other Waco's and Ruby Ridge could and will happen. I'm talking about entire States proclaiming they will no longer abide by un-Constitutional laws and regulations.

Thirty seven (37) states have resolutions pending or have passed such resolutions re-claiming State sovereignty. While not legally binding, it's a start.

Again, if just a few States were to pass laws affirming they will no longer abide by illegal Fedgov mandates, there would be little DC could do, and there definitely would not be a Civil War. People (politicians included) nowadays don't have the stomach for such carnage. Plus, I'm not talking about secession.

[Gilbo_3]

in a perfect world, the backs of all the atf thugs should be covered, but reality is that most everyone is waitin for the other guy to 'go first'...

thats why I think the elected guys [sheriffs] need to all get their poopies together and be ready to declare 'hands off' to the fedthugs if/when they come rollin in...

deputize half the county worth of citizens to enforce the policy and put the ball back into holders hands...my .02...

[A Navy Vet]

"Our military won't but UN troops from, say, Pakistan? No problem."

With some 80 million gun owners? Good luck with that. Even Japan knew better than to invade. And where will our military be while the UN invades? Never happen.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The ATF can have a big hiring binge like TSA did, and get the cream of the crop who want to be paid thugs. Give them a share of the loot, and they’ll gladly help to pillage free American communities, shooting on sight. Raping is a freebie.

Don’t ever think for a minute that the potential for evil does not reside in every people, and in the heart of every man.

[A Navy Vet]

"“Most likely we would see a Military coup, or the least a mutiny within the middle ranks of the military” Be careful what we wish for as there are always unintended consequences."

I don't wish for it. It's the last thing I want to see happen to my Country. We're talking hypotheticals.

[Paine in the Neck]

Get your Nullification tee shirt here!

[mrmeyer]

I was very displeased to see an excerpt in the latest NRA magazine stating more or less that they aren’t touching this issue with a ten foot pole, and referenced the CA marijuana case implying this would lose in federal court.

[tpmintx]

[Fedgov actually order the Military to fire on their brothers and other family? Think not.]

History shows that they often will.

Maybe so, maybe not. I don't think 0bama plans to use the military.

Why on earth do you think he is assembling(organizing?) his own National Civilian Community Corps.?

This reminds me of the Baseej in Tehran; a special group, outside of the police and/or military, empowered to kick a$$ and take names of people who are opposed to whatever the government is doing. Glenn Beck has alluded to a hidden structure that is being set up. I wish he would use the Baseej reference in his discussion, because I think that is what we are headed for. It won't be the military, it will be armed SEIU members or maybe those guys in Philly.

[Emile]

Of course, it will take a number (not sure how many) of State governors with some b*lls to do such.

There is no evidence that "a number" of state governors have, as you so succinctly put it, the "b*lls" to do anything of the sort. I hope they can find a way to develop some, and soon.

[occamrzr06]

Care to elaborate?

I think the FEDS have their hooks too deep in the states. Although their are some states that will most likely challenge the FEDS, I think they will ultimately back down.

The example given, Montana, well they fought the National Speed limit for a number of years, but eventually backed down when the FEDS played hardball with Hwy money.

Just because I don’t think the states will stand up to the FEDS, doesn’t mean I don’t think they should.

My dad used to tell me, “Put shit in one hand and hope in the other and see which one fills up first”!

[ponygirl]

Those huge chunks of blue in Arizona are indian reservation. Not much population out there.

[Emile]

American patriots might wind up fighting for their rights, but they will surely do so as a minority. The majority of the American people are just plain spoiled and soft — or mind-numbed by their government school indoctrination — or drugged by bread and circuses that have no meaning — or dependent in some way on government handouts. Pick one or more of the above. Patriots will have to go it alone — or in some cases, fight against, these drones who don’t want to give up their “free” goodies. IOW, against the majority that keeps putting socialists in office.