[Still Thinking]

Whoever wrote this doesn't understand how the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution has been (mis)interpreted by the courts. That interpretation reflects the view that by the simple act of manufacturing guns and ammunition in Montana that is not sold outside Montana still affects interstate commerce since fewer guns and ammo will be imported into Montana as a result. That will affect the sale and transport of guns and ammunition in the other 49 states. Sound convoluted? It is convoluted but it is also "the law".

It's not that they don't "understand" the way the law has been perverted. They're not asking for clarification. They're simply saying what anyone smarter than an elected official already knew but also repudiating that wrong interpretation as respects firearms and saying that they'll no longer pretend it's correct. I fail to see a problem.

[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.