MONTANA DEFIES FEDS - THREATENS SECESSION!

Post Scripts ^ | 5/4/09 | Jack Lee

[OneVike]

Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law

Executive Summary - The USA 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.

[OneVike]

Yup, just over the Bozeman pass from my old stomping grounds. My Grandfather really disliked him and his buddies from Hollywierd.

[Still Thinking]

Now if you just change “release” to “realize”, you’re good. Unless I missed something. ;-)

[BigSkyFreeper]

The other large land owner is Ted Turner, who I think owns land in 4 western states, two of which are Montana and Wyoming. His buffalo farm is the reason brucellosis has been spreading through the beef industry.

[Straight Vermonter]

...although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez

I think there is wiggle room here. If Montana enacts these laws does it have a substantial effect on interstate commerce? In light of some recent cases (US v. Morrison) I would look forward to this law being tested by SCOTUS. You should read Thomas' dissent in Gonzales v. Raich. It sounds like he wants to overturn Wickard v. Filburn. I hope he can convince some others on the court.

[InterceptPoint]

I fail to see a problem.

I'm not being critical of the article or the Montana initiative. It is the right thing to do and the Constitution is on their side. I just wanted to point out that the courts are not on there side. The Interstate Commerce clause of our Constitution has been distorted in a way that basically gives the Federal Government a free hand to legislate any kind of business activity they like.

So the people of Montana have their work cut out for them. I don't' think they would win their case in today's Supreme Court (you would need Kennedy to go along) and the future isn't looking very bright.

And the idea of secession really isn't going anywhere. As a practical matter, Montana would have to assume their share of the current $11 trillion Federal debt, an impossible burden on any government entity that lacks the power to print their own money.

[Still Thinking]

Exactly. Republicans are almost as bad at infringing on proper state issues as long as it’s on social issues. See Raich.

[Straight Vermonter]

I agree but the older the decision is the harder it is to overturn it.

[Ken H]

Better decide who to follow on this - Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia. Can't have it both ways:

Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

-J. Scalia concurring, Gonzales v Raich

_____________________________________

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

J. Thomas dissenting, Gonzales v Raich

[Still Thinking]

I'm not being critical of the article or the Montana initiative. It is the right thing to do and the Constitution is on their side. I just wanted to point out that the courts are not on there side.

Oh, I know, believe me. If the courts had their head out of their hind sides MT wouldn't be making noises like this, because even Obama would be restrained from most of the stuff he's fscking up.

[OneVike]

Yea, I knew that. They are good buddies and both spend big bucks effecting laws. Fortunately they must have lost on this or have stake in a few gun manufacturing companies. Who knows?

[Straight Vermonter]

That’s just the one I found online.

[BigSkyFreeper]

And the idea of secession really isn't going anywhere. As a practical matter, Montana would have to assume their share of the current $11 trillion Federal debt, an impossible burden on any government entity that lacks the power to print their own money.

The Montana Legislature recently ended it's 90-day session about $10 billion in the hole.

[Still Thinking]

Hmmm. So those who accept Wickard have 70 years of precedent on their side. I guess we’ll just have to make due with the other 170.

[Straight Vermonter]

You may be correct. As I wrote to someone else Clarence Thomas, in his dissent to Gonzales v. Raich, seems willing to dramatically limit the congress’ power to use the commerce clause.

[Still Thinking]

I’ve always secretly wanted to replace everybody from Scalia to Stevens with eight Thomas clones.

[OneVike]

Pot does not have constitutional protection like the 2nd amendment right to arms.

Then if you read Scalia's decision on the 2nd amendment you could see him siding with Montana on this. Either way this will be worth watching.

[LearsFool]

Montana would have to assume their share of the current $11 trillion Federal debt

I don't see why. I'd suggest they gorge themselves on whatever they can grab from this "stimulus" boondoggle, and then bail out without paying the check.

...an impossible burden on any government entity that lacks the power to print their own money.

Any sovereign nation (that's part of the point of secession) can coin its own money.

[publiusF27]

No, Wickard and Lopez are not the cases to watch. The more recent precedents in this area are Gonzalez vs Raich and US vs Stewart

At the link above, Scalia, agreeing with the liberal majority in Raich, helpfully explains why Lopez does not need to be overturned, and why Wickard is the relevant precedent in this kind of case. Shortly after Raich was decided, the Supreme Court sent the Stewart case back to the 9th Circuit for reconsideration "in light of" the Raich opinion. The original opinion out of the 9th Circuit in the Stewart case was actually very good, but then the drug war precedent got involved and things went downhill.

[humblegunner]

I hope we get rolling before I’m too old for the fight.

[Straight Vermonter]

You and me both.

It’s just because we are racist conservatives though..oh wait...