ATF Tries to Revoke "Montana Made" State Sovereignty Laws [Firearms Freedom Acts]

National Association for Gun Rights Mail ^ | 02/20/2010 09:02:31 am | National Association for Gun Rights

[fight_truth_decay]

We all predicted this would happen.

In a move typical for that fear-mongering organization with an ever-swelling acronym, the BATFE has written gun dealers in the states of Montana and Tennessee to let them know the BATFE will be disregarding the states' sovereign gun laws.

The "Montana Made" law, just like Tennessee's Firearms Freedom Act, is very simple.

Much of the claimed federal authority to regulate firearm sales and transfers stems from a liberal interpretation of every American tyrant's favorite subterfuge, the "interstate commerce" clause. In essence, this is what gives the BATFE its nasty teeth.

With this in mind, Montana correctly understood that any weapon made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is Montana's business and Montana's business alone.

Montana thus sought to take charge of its firearms industry with the application of a simple truism:

Any gun made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is intrastate commerce, not "interstate commerce," and thus does not full under the purview of the federal government.

Potentially, the state would be able to say goodbye to NICS checks; Brady background checks; NFA taxes, bans and NFA databases -- and most importantly, federal "assault weapons" bans, which Montana and Tennessee rightly anticipated.

In effect, the "Montana Made" law would have permitted Montana gun companies to manufacture any kind of weapon banned by federal law -- including so-called "assault weapons" -- and sell them to fellow Montana residents.

Moreover, in this scenario, no one -- neither the manufacturer nor the dealer nor the buyer -- would have to kowtow to the BATFE by paying them a $200 tax and surrendering one's privacy to their notoriously inaccurate and oft-abused National Firearms Registry.

It was a new day for freedom -- and other states besides Tennessee were thinking of following suit: Alaska, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

Well, the BATFE -- never one to have its power downplayed (or acronym belittled)-- has written letters to both Montana and Tennessee gun dealers letting them know that they proceed at their own risk.

We can only guess what new horrors those words portend -- probably more dead housewives and children as disgruntled ATF thugs shoot-to-kill anyone suspected of perhaps owning a firearm not properly taxed and regulated by Washington, D.C., power brokers.

What else would be new.

A few of our members expressed interest in contacting the BATFE to vent some righteous anger -- the same thing we did when the Department of Defense said they were going to ban all once-fired military brass for resale.

Remember how the DoD reneged on that commitment after just a few days due to the widespread backlash from gun owners and law enforcement?

Well, this is a bit different. Writing the ATF and providing them with your information is akin to giving thieves your home address and the hours you won't be home.

We're going to take a different, less dangerous approach.

We've been talking to state officials from both Montana and Tennessee today to try to figure out the best way we can help these state laws succeed.

For now, click here to read Luke's commentary on his blog and leave a comment as this development unfolds.

*Snip

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown Executive Director National Association for Gun Rights

[snuffy smiff]

Hmm, wonder if that gunstock maker is still using him in it’s advertising? I can’t recall their name at the moment. Do you?

[itsahoot]

Watch here

[snuffy smiff]

Never mind.

(note to self-read ALL posts first before asking stupid questions!)

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

BATF = Burn All Toddlers First

[itsahoot]

Now please tell me where and when the ATF have the rights to revoke the States 10Th Amendment Rights?

They ignored it from the day it was ratified. States Rights do not exist apart from Federal permission.

[itsahoot]

Interstate Commerce Clause has screwed up our country.

Actually Judicial Precedent has destroyed the Constitution.

[SatinDoll]

“One poster made an interesting point that the SCOTUS has already ruled federal marijuana laws trump state laws.”

Yes, that is true. There is a major difference between marijuana and a firearm.

The 2nd Amendment affirms our right to possess a firearm.

There is no right to grow or use marijuana, and definitely no right to get stoned! Food and drugs are regulated by the U.S. Govenment.

[bIlluminati]

Horiuchi ...was an FBI Hostage Rescue Team guy.

Is that like saying Dr. Joseph Mengele was with Jewish Medical Care, and a Holocaust survivor?

[Red Steel]

The BATFE is setting up a scenario of a possible dangerous confrontation between the State and them the Feds.

[melkor]

IIRC they also said that pot didn’t have any identifying marks that would prove it wasn’t crossing a state line. Guns have serial numbers.

[Durus]

Food and drugs are regulated by the U.S. Govenment.

True. By what authority does the U.S. Government regulate food and drugs?

[Monorprise]

“The BATF is Ruby Ridge and WACO.
Murdering gestapo thugs.”

Tell them we care as much of their judgment of their “right” to break the laws of our state as we do for any other criminal.

Tell them we will not recognized their status as Federal agents, nor their clam to be acting in present to unconstitutional Federal law be treated as relevant.

The Federal government will NOT be permitted to be the judge of the extent of their own authority. Only the people and their states are of authority to judge the extent of the authority they ceded to the Federal government.

This is a truism established in our founding in the republican printable that all rights are derived by government form the consent of the governed! NOT the consent of the government!

[Gaffer]

I stand corrected. If he was FBI then his crime in my opinion is even the more worse.

[Gaffer]

No, but I don’t think it was ‘Boyds’.....

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Predictable, and necessary for these righteous state laws to be heard before SCOTUS. Here is to praying Obama can’t stack the deck in the meantime and praying those on our side of the court stay healthy.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

BATF abuse is yet another thing that our recent idiot George W Bush failed to do anything about in his 8 years at the helm.

After Obama gets swept out, we are going to have to do a better job demanding from our Republican President that he fires, wholesale, the socialists in the BATF and start from scratch.

[dynachrome]

Dunno if you saw this one yet:

“Well, the BATFE — never one to have its power downplayed (or acronym belittled)— has written letters to both Montana and Tennessee gun dealers letting them know that they proceed at their own risk.”

[dennisw]

All I know is the ATF is a bunch of money grubbers who looked like idiots in that big Waco raid

[supercat]

Tell them we will not recognized their status as Federal agents, nor their clam to be acting in present to unconstitutional Federal law be treated as relevant.

Unconstitutional statutes, regulations, and other rules are, by definition, not laws. I would like to see people stop using the term "laws" to refer to them, since such linguistic usage suggests that they are legitimate unless or until a court strikes them down. It is certainly true that they may be enforced, but that doesn't make them legitimate.

BTW, I would also like to see a few more things declared in these state laws:

1. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has any authority to declare an unconstitutional statute to be valid. If a statute contradicts the Constitution, it's unconstitutional, regardless of anything any court might say.
2. Persons associated with the federal government who commit crimes for the purpose of enforcing illegitimate rules should be presumed to be a high flight risk and denied bail on that basis.
3. Even if the federal government has a legitimate interest in restricting individual actions which affect interstate commerce, there is no reason this interest would require restricting actions which do not materially affect interstate commerce. The interest could be met by forbid people from doing certain actions in such a way as to materially affect interstate commerce. The effect on interstate commerce would be a required element of the crime which the federal government would have to prove. Given that such a statute would be sufficient for the federal government to meet its legitimate interests, a broader statute is not "necessary" (except, perhaps, to achieve illegitimate interests).

The Constitution was written to be understandable by ordinary people. The only reason "Constitutional Law" is complicated is that judges have to pretend the Constitution bends and twists in such a way as to render their rulings legitimate.

[BCR #226]

I wonder if the BATFE realizes that they are being set up. I suspect that there’s gonna be some BATFE thugs in jail in Montana before its all over.

This could get interesting no matter how it goes. Of course, it may all be moot when the McDonald v. Chicago decision comes down. I suspect that BATFE isn’t going to be cheering that decision too much.