Posted on 05/06/2009 7:24:33 AM PDT by tcrlaf
The 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.
Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch.
Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama's face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.
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. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA , the very document that empowers the USA .
Silencers made in Montana and sol in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.
Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back.
Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.
There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana . Way to go Montana !
Nah, they just got new blocking software and haven’t heard enough complaints from enough higher-ups yet. I figure it’ll last about another month.
It’s tragic that a legislature and a governor can exercise their right to nullify federal usurpations when it comes to guns, while it doesn’t occur to them to nullify federal usurpation by sending police and/or troops to shut down abortion mills.
It may be impossible to distinguish but it should be up to the state to determine whether it will mimic Federal law and should not be imposed upon it. Come on, Scalia, a schoolkid could understand this. The Constitution is set up with liberty and freedoms as givens. The powers of the Federal government picks up where those end.
Excellent point.
I’m still willing to say that the action cycling will still make more noise than the round.
Shooting an integrally suppressed semi-auto 22 on a regular basis, (including this morning) I can report (no pun intended) that my wife insists that I close my office door, because the air-staple-gun-like “pop” is startling and annoying. Cycling an action does not generate the same request.
Suppressed guns are quiet compared to unsuppressed guns, but they are still loud with respect to other ordinary sounds.
I sometimes prefer wearing light ear protection when shooting a suppressed 45 indoors or under a a roof outdoors, because it still goes bang, and I’m very protective of my hearing.
Many people perceive that because they can hear the action (or bullet striking the target) that this means that the report is quieter than the action noise. In fact, it isn’t, and the effect is due to not wearing the hearing protection.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! That was great. &^D
Wish there was someone in CA with the Brass to write a similar Bill here.
10th amendment related. Ping, if you haven’t seen this.
I personally find it hard to get enough of Zappa’s music. His politics on the other hand...
If other states follow and approve it and y’all elect a Republican Governor maybe they will.
Even when CA elects a Repub as Gov, we end up with a liberal - just look at Ahnold - what a farce that was.
he was a rabid leftist....as a teenager though I found his music wild....and of course kids tend to not think too hard about such things as politics.
The more libertarian parts of me likes his 1st amendment stance against Tipper Gore.
Very little dang noise. An oddity, the silenced 1895 Nagant revolver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvF4yurWSc0
There’s a monologue on you can’t do that on stage anymore (I think, but it might be on does humor belong in music), where what he says about Reagan is pretty repugnant. Basically says the best thing you can do when Reagan is on TV is to turn down the volume, point to the TV and tell your kids if he offers them candy or asks them to fight in Nicaragua they should say no.
He basically equivocated fighting in Nicaragua to pedophilia and accused Reagan of same.
This is the second thread on this topic I have seen which included the possibility of Montana seceding. Is this conjecture on the part of the columnist or is there actually talk along those lines?
Time to start a secession movement in FR. It is not treason when we are trying to reclaim the Constitution.
Great album....
Very good points.
But we have dissenting opinions. Canabis smokers or those who need it for medicinal purposes did not have the numbers to fight the federal law. There are 100 million gun owners. Gun Owners will not go silent into that good night. It appears to me Justice Stevens will be left in the cold.
Justice O’Connor, dissenting, began her opinion by citing United States v. Lopez, which she followed with a reference to Justice Louis Brandeis’s dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:
“ Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that “a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country...”[9]
”
O’Connor concluded:
“ Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.
”
Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:
“ Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce ... among the several States.”
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
”
and
“ If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”
”
and further:
“ If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”[10]
”
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, author of the majority opinions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, joined O’Connor’s dissent.
I can’t help put this in here, forgive me for highjacking.
VOTE NO on Arnold’s trickery!
Calculate personal tax impact of budget for you!
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1627728.html
Vote No on Proposition 1A — The $16 Billion Tax Increase
http://hjta.org/proposition-1a/vote-no-proposition-1a-16-billion-tax-increase
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.