The BATF is Ruby Ridge and WACO.
Murdering gestapo thugs.
Every state should pass the same laws and tell the Feds to F - off.
I’d say any gun dealer hassled by BATFE on Montana-produced and sold guns should call the Montana State Police upon ANY encroachment of its premises for that distinction.
Is the BATFE going to go Waco on the whole state of Montana?
Expect “SO” to be the next letters added to the acronym. “SO” = “Sharp Objects”. Guess they’ve figured out they can’t afford to throw the entire population in concentration camps, so they’re trying to do the next ‘best’ thing. Turn America INTO a concentration camp.
‘I see your BATF SWAT team and raise you one Montana National Guard.’
One poster made an interesting point that the SCOTUS has already ruled federal marijuana laws trump state laws.
We will see if the current SCOTUS goes the same way or not as this will probably get to that level within the next few years.
Gun/States rights, CWII ping.
1. The Founding Fathers would have either said "The Bureau of what?" or "Excellent idea-one stop shopping."
2. Molon Labe. Ignore the Feds-let them try and take them. The Governors could call out the Guard and there would be a showdown. Obama would back down. Heck. he backed down from itsy bitsy Honduras.
He fought the feds - sued them when they tried to impose their gun laws - with this all the way to the SCOTUS - and WON!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiBcC8_goVg
N.H, has passed their sovereignty law - with legal consequences to any Fed who tries to override it
There fixed it. When's the call to arms?
Proceed and tell them to POUND SAND!
I was barely aware of the ATF until they botched that raid on the Branch Davidians. I remember affirmative action female ATF agents bawling their eyes out at the chaotic scene. They were traumatized because some crazies had actually shot back at the ATF crazies. A big publicity stunt gone bad. They figured Bill Clinton would increase their funding
The head honcho David Koresh could have been easily arrested off the compound with a minimum display of force
Can anyone show me where the existence of the BATWTF is justified in the Constitution?
Bump for later.
States to BATFE:
Any BATFE agent interfering with state rights will be arrested, put on trial for treason, found guilty, and hung at dawn.
The way things are structured, both the federal government and the state government have jurisdiction over the individual. They call it “dual sovereignty.” The federal government does not have jurisdiction over the state.
The theory of state interposition is that somehow the state can get between the federal government and the individual. In this case, the state has said that it is exempting the individual from the jurisdiction of the federal government when the firearms are entirely manufactured and sold within the state. The state is presuming that the Constitutional authority of the federal government to regulate individuals involved in firearms manufacture and sales stems entirely from the Interstate Commerce Clause. The state is attempting to exempt firearms that are made and sold intrastate from federal jurisdiction by defining them as outside the stream of interstate commerce.
The feds are ignoring the state and telling the individuals that they will regulate them and, by implication, that the firearms and transactions are within the stream of the interstate commerce act or that they have the Constitutional authority to regulate based on some other enumerated power. The state law has the effect of being advisory only and the feds are telling the individuals it is bad advise.
I wonder if the state will defend the individual in court when he is arrested by federal agents for violation of the federal regulation. (And whatever you think, the Sheriff cannot prevent the feds from exercising their legitimate regulatory authority over an individual.) From my readings of prior SCOTUS interpretations of the Interstate Commerce authority, I think the state (if it goes to court) and individual will lose.
(This does not mean that I don’t think that the Court has gone off the moon in interpreting the powers of the Interstate Commerce Act.)
So, to me, the solution is to get folks in the White House and Senate who will appoint and confirm conservative 2nd Amendment judges. Or set up test cases to challenge Constitutionality in court. Or, I believe I read that a member of Congress can ask SCOTUS to rule on the Constitutionality of a regulation. If that is so, we need more Congresspersons willing to put those questions to the court. We also need Congress to pass the act that requires that laws be rectified and referenced with appropraite Constitutional authority.
This has zero chance of going anywhere. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-1794 decide it.
Excise taxes levied on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms are accepted practice. Congress has decided all manufactured firearms will be assessed an excise tax. Additionally, machine guns, short barrel firearms, and other destructive devices are assessed an additional $200 excise.
Ruby Ridge was specifically about failure to pay a $200 tax stamp for a sawed of shotgun. Waco was about failure to pay $200 tax stamps for automatic weapons.
The Constitution’s commerce clause is not the locus of authority, it is excise tax from Article 1, Section 8.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Wha a bunch of fools...
The letter of the law can be stretched and reformed and distorted to what ever the far-left national socialists would like it to be.
But the Spirit of the law cannot – would the framers of the Constitution have allowed there to be a huge loophole that would allow the government unlimited powers when the rest of the document clearly restrains the power of government?
The Leftists like to use their universal get out of jail free card In the form of the commerce clause for virtually any usurpation of the Constitution.
Would that have been “OKAY” with the framers?