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.

[cizinec]

["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."]

The courts have ruled that purely intrastate events may affect interstate commerce and are, therefore, subject to federal law. The question is whether or not the Supremes would be willing to overturn United States v. Lopez.

The answer isn't with some state standing up to this nonsense, it's with the rest of the public getting behind a new constitutional amendment correcting judicial abuses concerning the Commerce Clause.

If we don't we will be eternally at the mercy of how the Supremes are stacked.

[mvpel]

Considering that it’s presently impossible for someone to purchase newly-manufactured silencers under Federal law, the Wickard argument won’t fly for them.

[Gabrial]

[Still Thinking]

Good for Montana, but I’m waiting for a state with beaches and a boat harbor to succeed before making my move.

To succeed at seceding? You know what they say, "If at first you don't secede..."

[Still Thinking]

But by then you’ll be a foreign national.

[LearsFool]

Way to go, Montana!

I particularly like Section 4. Prohibitions. (things the federal government is prohibited from doing.)

[cizinec]

I reply it back to you and everyone else citing Wickard v. Filburn. United States v. Lopez will have to be overturned. Wickard v. Filburn was already discussed in relation to a Federal firearms law. I grant you that Lopez was under the Rhenquist Court, but the current Supremes would have to overturn existing precedence.

[Still Thinking]

Hawaii might succeed but I’m afraid if I go there I’ll be whats for dinner.

Skeeter, the other other white meat.

[Dead Corpse]

W v F was one of the worst instances of judicial activism ever. Ranks right up there with Marshall’s dementia inspired “incorporation” farce.

[Still Thinking]

Unfortunately, this technique was tried in agriculture back during FDR’s reign. The supreme court decided that a local farmer was still engaged in interstate commerce even if the wheat never even left the farm! This is in Mark Levin’s new book Liberty & Tyranny. But it still sends a message.

Well, since it was tried once and failed, let's never do it again.

[La Enchiladita]

Hawaii might succeed ...

Succeed at what??

[cizinec]

precedent. i type b4 i think.

[LearsFool]

things the federal government is prohibited from doing.

...Or I should say, things the state of Montana prohibits the federal government from doing! (Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?)

[La Enchiladita]

Pretty cool you both came up with same case within seconds, shows FRs haven’t (entirely) lost their touch!:)

[skeeter]

[skeeter]

At seceding.

[La Enchiladita]

Succession is only mentioned as speculation by the author.

Really? Or, does the author mention secession?

[La Enchiladita]

Very good, skeeter, you may go to the head of the class!
:-)

[eleni121]

We will probably move to and live in whichever state goes ahead with this.

Enough already! The former Soviet states now have more freedom than the US.

[TigersEye]

The federal government fears citizens owning guns.

They will fear even more a state standing up and telling them to shove it. Excellent news!