[Libertyteeth]

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/02/15/news/anti.txt

Anti-federal bills move forward in House

By WALT WILLIAMS Chronicle Staff Writer
HELENA -- Lawmakers in the Montana House of Representatives collectively thumbed their noses at the federal government Monday by approving two bills exempting guns from federal regulations and driver's licenses from national standardization requirements.

The bills by Reps. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, and Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, do different things but are driven by the same concern: the erosion of personal liberties by the federal government.

Koopman said Monday his gun bill, House Bill 366, would inspire a home-grown industry of gun-makers who produce firearms to be sold in Montana. It also sends a message reaffirming states' rights.

"In that regard, this bill really has positive consequences, I believe, beyond the firearms industry itself," he said. ...

Montana also has legislation pending to clarify the right to use lethal force in defense of persons and property, which also establishes Alaska-carry in Montana. Other pending legislation requires federal agents to first get the permission of the county sheriff before engaging in any enforcement activity. Another bill requires Montana law enforcement to refrain from assisting federal agents if what they are doing violates the Montana constitution (such as enforcing provisions of the Patriot Act).

For more information on moving to Montana, see www.freewest.org. See also

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreeMontanaProject/?yguid=126065389

[Nazirite]

Maybe I need to move.

[Sergeant Sabre]

Outstanding. We need more states like this.

[MrTuffPaws]

I wish them the best of luck.

[Phantom Warrior]

I like all of those provisions, but I'm how much chance do they have? I could easily see them being overturned by the Supreme Court. Federal law does supercede state law. Or the federal government could just do what they did w/ the drinking age, deny funds until desired compliance is achieved.

Someone else want to chime in?

[Libertyteeth]

The provision regarding manufacture of firearms in state for sale to Montana residents only, and to be retained in-state, is based on a recent case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case held that an individual who had manufactured a machine gun from scratch for his own personal use, was exempt from federal regulation because the gun had not passed in interstate commerce.

If a Montana manufacturer sells a gun which goes out of state, it continues to be subject to federal regulation.

Who knows what the future holds, but it is good that the people of Montana and their legislators are beginning to find the spine required to resist the federal juggernaut. Have been for some time.

For instance, Montana has exempted itself successfully from the federal law prohibiting possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a school.

[Jay Kominek]

For instance, Montana has exempted itself successfully from the federal law prohibiting possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a school.I thought the SCOTUS struck that down, since it effectively disenfranchised everyone who lived within 1/5th of a mile of a school.

[flatrock]

I like all of those provisions, but I'm how much chance do they have? I could easily see them being overturned by the Supreme Court. Federal law does supercede state law. Or the federal government could just do what they did w/ the drinking age, deny funds until desired compliance is achieved.

It all comes down to those laws being justified by the commerce clause of the constitution.

The federal governemnt says it can regulate guns because guns are sold in interstate commerce, and regulating that commerce includes regulating all guns, not just those sold across state lines.

The recent district court ruling brings into question the federal governments authority to regulate items that aren't sold across state lines and don't have a significant effect on interstate commerce (which should be obvious, but the courts look at what they want to do, not what makes sense).

Could the federal government take away federal funds if the states don't pass laws matching what the federal government wants them to do? It sure seems like a blatant constitutional violation of state's rights, but the courts have let them do it before.

The constitution significantly limits the power of the federal government, but the courts have failed to uphold those limitations so often in the past that it's questionable if they have any meaning anymore. The current justices are unlikely to go against those rulings even if they disagree with them, because so many other rulings are based on them, and huge numbers of laws that are likely unconstitutional would have their constitutionality challenged again if the uustices rule that the commerce clause can't be abused they way it has been abused.

I really doubt there are enough members of the Supreme Court that are willing to stand up for the Constitution and toss the decades of case law and previous rulings based on activist justices in the past.

It would be wonderful if it were to happen, but it's not likely.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Federal law does supercede state law."

Only where the federal government actually has authority to enact law. Now if we could only convice the Supreme court to care if the federal government actually has authority over something...

[Standing Wolf]

Montana is what more states ought to aspire to being.

[jlwatts3]

Montana is a great state. If they only had the economy of CA I would be there.

[Libertyteeth]

If Montana had the economic opportunities California has, there would be millions of people here, and the unique political atmosphere would vanish. Montana is a tough place to make a go of it, but we are encouraging freedom-loving people to move here and adapt as best they can, and help us make a stand for liberty. Not everyone will see a way to do it, but some will. Some already have.

[DMF]

I wonder if Rice and Koopman also like to joust with windmills?

[modifiedbrowning]

This is good stuff, but the senate is divided evenly and we have a new Dem Governor. I hadn't heard about the Alaska carry bill, do you have a link, LibertyTeeth?

[Libertyteeth]

The House is pretty closely divided also, but they went for the made in Montana firearms bill overwhelmingly -- and the governor is kind of a pro-gun renegade.

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/2005/billhtml/HB0693.htm

Section 11. Section 45-8-316, MCA, is amended to read:
"45-8-316. Carrying concealed weapons. (1) Every A person who carries or bears concealed upon his the person just prior to using it to commit a criminal offense a dirk, dagger, pistol, revolver, slingshot, sword cane, billy, knuckles made of any metal or hard substance, knife having a blade 4 inches long or longer, razor, not including a safety razor, or other deadly weapon shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding 6 months, or both.

(2) A person who has previously been convicted of an offense, committed on a different occasion than the offense under this section, in this state or any other jurisdiction for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of 1 year could have been imposed and who carries or bears concealed upon his the person just prior to using it to commit a criminal offense any of the weapons described in subsection (1) shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisoned in the state prison for a period not exceeding 5 years, or both."

Here is Gary Marbut's explanation:

"Sections 10, 11 and 14 need to be taken together. Sections 10 and 11 are amending existing laws. 45-8-315 defines a "concealed weapon" and 45-8-316 establishes the misdemeanor crime of carrying a concealed weapon. Language with a strikethrough is to be removed from existing law, and language that is underlined is to be added to existing law. The changes to 45-8-316 change the crime of carrying a concealed weapon to make it applicable only to someone just before they use that weapon to commit a crime - that is, someone with criminal intent (but without using the word "intent"). Basically, it exempts all law abiding people from the crime of carrying a concealed weapon. Section 14 repeals 45-8-317, which makes a whole long list of exceptions for people who may not be prosecuted under 316, including people with CWPs and people outside of towns. Since in Section 10 we are exempting all law abiding people in Montana, we no longer need the list in 317. All of this leaves the permitting process in place, so if people want to get permits for non-resident travel or Brady buys, they'll still be available. These changes moves us to an Alaska-style system."

[Michigander]

So where are the feds going to spend the money they will not be giving to Montana?

[Drill Sgt.]

I wish Montana and all of its residents the best of luck. And should they prevail I pray that there will be more to follow.Now is this a sign of political change we should all support and assist in its growth? Good Luck.

[Spot77]

So where are the feds going to spend the money they will not be giving to Montana?

They'll divert it to New Jersey, Maryland or California as anti-gun money disguised as "anti-crime" money.

[HankB]

Could the federal government take away federal funds if the states don't pass laws matching what the federal government wants them to do? If Federal funding is taken away, a relevant question then is: Can states simply discontinue Federally mandated - but now unfunded - programs? Can states withdraw services (police, fire, etc.) from Federal offices and properties? Can states apply multitier pricing to Federal users of utilities (such as electricity and water) the way they do to other customers?

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

If Montana had the economic opportunities California has, there would be millions of people here, and the unique political atmosphere would vanish. Montana is a tough place to make a go of it, but we are encouraging freedom-loving people to move here and adapt as best they can, and help us make a stand for liberty. Not everyone will see a way to do it, but some will. Some already have.

You'd better be doing everything you can to choke the life out of the skiing industry in Montana. That's what attracted all of the Liberals to Colorado.

The only thing that's saved Utah from the Liberal invasion is the presence of all the conservative Mormons.

[TallPine]

The only thing that's saved Utah from the Liberal invasion is the presence of all the conservative Mormons.
Two of Montana's greatest assets are cold and wind :neener:


BTW, this change in the law would only affect CCW inside incorporated cities and towns, since it is already legal without a permit outside city limits ;)

Oh, and the Feds can take their money and they can take their :cuss: wolves along with them :fire:

[munk]

Yes, wind and cold. In the East, Mosquitos.

WE have problems though. A mining iniative recently lost while a medical pot proposition passed. Obviously, we should have linked the two proposals so that liberal yuppies in Kalispell would have supporting our renewed industry if we let the the miners smoke pot.
WE also passed a buck a pack tax on ciggarettes. I don't smoke, but I think enough's enough. A friend of mine who does smoke is considering making a green house and rasing Tobacco, or just smoking pot instead.


munk

[TallPine]

munk: <sigh> yeah, I know ...

FWIW, I voted FOR both of those ;)

Basically, I only vote FOR anything unless it is AGAINST an existing restriction - I vote AGAINST all new restrictions, regardless of what it is.

The one restriction I would vote FOR is one AGAINST busybodies :p :D

[munk]

Same here, Tall Pine. I voted for mining, for pot, and against the buck tax.
I don't smoke pot. I do think the drug war is lost and costing us too much.

Whenever possible, it is important to vote for freedom. There is a cost to freedom. WE accept the cost of reckless speech, misuse of firearms and drugs. We do this in order to enjoy the benefits of the wise choices most of us make, comprising a society.



On that note, we need to can Baucas. (sic?)

munk

[Captain Crunch]

HB693, The Citizen Self-Defense and Firearms Rights Act is scheduled for a first reading in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Feb 17.

Here's the text of the bill:http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/2005/billhtml/HB0693.htm

I sent an e-mail to all the Judiciary Committee members asking them to vote for the measure.

The committee chair is Repbulican Diane Rice. Here's her URL if Montana members want to send her e-mail:http://leg.state.mt.us/css/sessions/59th/leg_info.asp?HouseID=0&SessionID=88&LAWSID=1436

Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to re-post the link to the text of the bill. Libertyteeth already did that.

[Agent_Iron]

Legislators that want Liberty...that is novel! :D I think it is awsome, and I wish them well! Maybe I will reside there one day. I love the land of eternal wind.

[fjolnirsson]

Montana is starting to sound better and better as a retirement spot...

[munk]

The two states I've lived in and like the best are Wyoming and Montana.



munk

[ReadyontheRight]

Why in the heck is Montana not the LP "Free State Project" ??? :confused:

[Jay Kominek]

Why in the heck is Montana not the LP "Free State Project" ???
Its my understanding that the first place votes were almost evenly split between Wyoming and New Hampshire, with those west of the Mississippi going for Wyoming, and those east going for New Hampshire. It just happened that there were more people east of the Mississippi.
Wyoming was probably winning over Montana because of the lack of personal income tax, and the smaller population.

[TallPine]

Why in the heck is Montana not the LP "Free State Project" ???
Good question, Ready ;)

I think it might have something to do with the lack of employment opportunities for anyone moving into the state.

My wife and I did our own "Free State" research in 1996-97, and settled on Montana as a better place to live than Colorado ("Colo-fornia" :rolleyes: ). Wyoming would have been a good choice too, but MT was farther from relatives ;)

Personally, I think the FSP missed the boat ... they should have selected TWO states - one in the East and one in the West. They would have doubled the effect instead of halving it, because not too many folks are going to move cross-continent. There's just too much cultural and climatic difference.

[theCZ]

Montana is what Nevada would still be if it isn't growing so much. All things considered, I'll be moving back to Nevada after college graduation in May. I was suprised at the marijauana bill passing, but not too suprised about the cyanide leach mining getting turned down. Montana is a fairly poor state with two-thirds of this country's best national parks (Yosemite will always be number one with me!), and gets a lot of income from tourism, yet the debate over keeping a no-sales tax policy still goes on. I come from a state where we have a sales tax, but no income tax. This makes the best of tourist coming into the state, but takes a little burden off of the residents with no income tax. Why couldn't Montana do something like that?

[ReadyontheRight]

Wyoming makes sense too. I could picture moving to Wyoming or Montana, NOT the East Coast.

Way to go Montana if these bills move forward! It's actually great news that these things are even being considered by politicians.

Maybe the pendulum is swinging back. (Where's that "prayer" smilie?)

[HungSquirrel]

I wonder if Rice and Koopman also like to joust with windmills?
Oh, man! Priceless! :D

[TallPine]

I come from a state where we have a sales tax, but no income tax. This makes the best of tourist coming into the state, but takes a little burden off of the residents with no income tax. Why couldn't Montana do something like that?
The problem is making sure the income tax goes away when the sales tax comes in. Many people are afraid that we will just end up with both.

The other thing might be trying to snag some income taxes from a few very high profile residents - although I suppose they are not really residents for income tax purposes even though they own property here.


Oh, BTW - DMF, you obviously don't know anything about Montana :rolleyes:

[publius]

Montana is in the 9th circuit, so I don't see the need for this law. A state law which defines the limits of federal power? Is that really a state job, in this context?

If the Stewart decision is overturned, what will be the legal effect of this state law? If the Supreme Court once again affirms the idea that the commerce clause can extend federal regulatory power to any item, whether or not it moved in interstate commerce, my bet is that this Montana law will not protect Montana residents who run afoul of federal gun laws.

Good to see them taking a poke at gun grabbers and federal overreach, but I think this one won't work.

[munk]

Resistance is never futile.





munk

[Sindawe]

Its my understanding that the first place votes were almost evenly split between Wyoming and New Hampshire, with those west of the Mississippi going for Wyoming, and those east going for New Hampshire. It just happened that there were more people east of the Mississippi. Wyoming was probably winning over Montana because of the lack of personal income tax, and the smaller population. Correct, as well as "better" drug laws.* Funny thing about us freedom loving folk, we think freedom extends to issues that we don't participate in, not just our "sacred cows" like guns. :D I was a voting member of the FSP, and my choices were all west of the Mississippi, with Wyoming being my first choice. The idea has not died however, see this site (http://www.freewest.org/). I'm still looking at Wyoming as relocation site. Resistance is never futile. "Better to die a free man on one's feet, than live on one's knees as a slave" eh? No argument from me.

* based on examination of state statues in the late 1990s.

[Libertyteeth]

Of course this bill is based on the Stewart decision out of the 9th circuit, but it is also based on claimed Montana state authority. Here is the wording from the bill, which has now passed the House 73 to 24 (including many Democratic votes) and awaits action in the Senate.

Libertyteeth

... NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declaration of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7 6] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(4) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889. ...

[munk]

Thanks for printing that!

Fascinating; they've used the fact that upon admission to the Union specific contracts were agreed upon by both signatories, the meaning of which was clear.

What a great idea. So the Federal Govt cannot go back on its word, or break the contract.


munk

[Cortland]

What a great idea. So the Federal Govt cannot go back on its word, or break the contract.

Uhh, yeah. That's not exactly a new idea. Madison and Jefferson (who you just might call Constitutional experts) said the same thing 200 years ago: see The Kentucky Resolutions (http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm) and the Virginia Resolution (http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm), written in protest of the Alien & Sedition Acts. The Montana legislation even uses the word "compact" in the same way that Jefferson did. Its inspiration is clear. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were passed by the legislatures of those states, and House Bill 366 really amounts to a modern-day "Montana Resolution."

[ak47nevada]

:D

I'm already planning on purchasing 10 acres in SW Montana in the next year. If these laws get passed I plan on working there as well for the next twenty years.

Montana is starting to look like a strong bastion of freedom. This is exactly what we need today to resist the NWO/Globalist elite and their jackboot thug minions.

[Kamicosmos]

I have to admit, Montana is looking better as the years go by.

I've had a long standing Plan/Fantasy to move to Colorado. But, the Liberal Invasion is starting to make it not so attractive. So, I started looking into Wyoming. But, job market and population and standard of living seems rather depressed there. (I could be way wrong on that though) Now, Montana seems to be the most Freedom loving state, is about as pretty as CO and WY from what I've seen of the western parts of the states.

I like snow, but bitter deep freeze cold and no real summers though...I'm still thinking....

[Libertyteeth]

"I like snow, but bitter deep freeze cold and no real summers though...I'm still thinking...."

The mountain valleys in Western Montana actually have a fairly mild climate compared to other northern latitudes such as the Midwest or Northeast. For years, I tried to make it sound bad, to discourage people from moving in, but now that there is a freedom migration underway, I tell some people the rest of the story. :D

The mountain valleys are semiarid, so don't get a lot of snow, and the cold spells don't last long. The mountains shield Western Montana from a lot of the arctic weather that comes down centered on the Midwest. If you do move here, be aware that Montana has a lot of microclimates because the mountains introduce complexity. Some areas are windy, for instance, and some are not. Lower-elevation areas are considered the "banana belts". You have to check around.

The Summers are the nicest Summers in the lower 48!

Libertyteeth

http://freewest.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=242

[munk]

Uhh, yeah. That's not exactly a new idea. >>>>>>>>> Cortland

What's the, "Uhh, yeah." serve? What possible purpose could this phrase have?

I said it was a great idea- not a new idea. But obviously I'm not a lawyer nor up on Jurisprudence. I'm glad you are. People who are intelligent and informed have no need to advertise this at the expense of others. I realize this is tempest in a teapot, but it is important for one simple fact: there is a level of uncivility on the net in general, and sometimes even on the High Road, which we do not need to have.
Anyway, your post is informative, and I thank you for it.

I'm obviously naive- the logical rebuttal to the claim of contract would be that Montana signed on to a Democratic process, a Republic which changes.


munk

[Cortland]

What's the, "Uhh, yeah." serve? What possible purpose could this phrase have?
To make you angry, it would appear. :eek:

I'm obviously naive- the logical rebuttal to the claim of contract would be that Montana signed on to a Democratic process, a Republic which changes.
The problem is the change is one-sided. A single party can't unilaterally alter a two party contract, and that's what happens when the Federal Government "re-interprets" the Constitution. You can, of course, make the claim that Federal supremacy provided the implicit right of the Federal Government to make unilateral changes, but the wording of the Constitution makes that claim a real stretch.

[munk]

Naw; I'm not mad. If you'd wanted to, you reeeaaallllyyy could have laid it on, but you didn't.

So what will come of Montana's claim, then?
From another perspective- we broke a whole lot of treaties with ndns- why not now with this Montana view of the contract?




munk

[Cortland]

From another perspective- we broke a whole lot of treaties with ndns- why not now with this Montana view of the contract?
Well that's just defeatism. Sure there's the way things are and then there's the way things ought to be, but they need not always be different. If the Federal Government wasn't in the habit of breaking its promises/responsibilities/compacts/etc. we wouldn't be having this conversation.

When a citizen decides not to follow a law that he feels is unconstitutional, he usually gets thrown in jail. So what happens when a State government decides not to follow that same law? The presence of the interstate commerce issue (and the subsequent problem of the Feds jurisdiction) make this question sufficiently different from the nullification question of the mid 19th century that its answer just may surprise us all.

[munk]

You have me interested. You even give me a little hope. Life throws us surprises now and then. I'd love to be surprised by the Supreme Court. I've been living with the growing fear the Supreme Court would rule the Second not an individual right. (In fact, recently had an argument with a Lawyer who assured me it was not an individual right.)

I was surprised Montana would challenge the Feds.


munk

[publius]

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declaration of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7 6] is the following:...


Those all seem quite obviously true to me. The Court has said that the 10th amendment is merely a truism, and they'll shoot down the rest of the arguments as well if they want to do so.

Cortland makes a good point about a modern-day "Montana Resolution." They're poking the federal bear in the eye. Well, good, he needs poking. But he's a bear.

[Sindawe]

They're poking the federal bear in the eye. Well, good, he needs poking. But he's a bear. What caliber is best for bear? :D

[Cortland]

Those all seem quite obviously true to me. The Court has said that the 10th amendment is merely a truism, and they'll shoot down the rest of the arguments as well if they want to do so.
Well, if you look at the Constitution as a contract, when it took effect in 1789 the Supreme Court had no power of judicial review. George Washington set the brief precedent of signing every law that Congress sent his way with the policy of vetoing only those laws which he felt were unconstitutional. Of course nowadays the drill is to do whatever the heck you like and hope the SC gives you the thumbs up. Anyway, the point is that the entire concept of judicial review in the U.S. was incestously created by the Supreme Court itself in 1803. As specified constitutionally, the Supreme Court is a very weak body. Sadly that's not the case today, but it needn't necessarily be so -- even in the absence of strife. As Andrew Jackson famously said, "The Supreme Court has made its decision. Now let them enforce it." Better yet, as the justices die off --- don't fill the vacancies! :D We've all heard of FDR's attempt at court packing, how about some court unpacking?

Another interesting tidbit involves the Confederate Supreme Court -- there was none. The Confederate Constitution provided for one, but the Congress refused to permanently establish one. Their experience with the U.S. Supreme Court led them to let the Supreme Courts of the several states decide the constitutionality of both state AND Confederate law (in effect giving the greenlight to nullification, if only judicially).

What caliber is best for bear?
.58 caliber Minie ball :what:

[TallPine]

and no real summers though
Yeah, it only gets up to about 110 F around here, though the average july/august high is more like 90 to 95. :rolleyes:


Back on topic, this whole thing could get interesting if it passes and somebody tests it out.

To my knowledge, the feds have no jail facilities in MT, but contract with local/state jails instead. At least I know that they contract with one of the same private prisons as the state for some federal prisoners.

So ... suppose the feds arrest someone for making a gun in MT and consign him/her to the local hoosegow - which promptly releases him/her on account of no crime was committed :p Or maybe just take the accused into state "protective custody" ...? How the feds gonna get 'em back ????????? :D

The big question is how long it will be till the emperor in DC sends in troops to put down the "insurgents". If you think opinion on the Iraq war is divided, wait until they start shooting at Americans :uhoh:

[2nd Amendment]

The most likely reprisal would not be troops. It will be witholding federal funds. This is the reality behind all those fed programs states can "opt out of". Sure they can...and lose the almighty dollars. Same thing here most likely, the effectiveness of which depends on whether Montana will step and say, OK, keep it.

If they do that I frankly figure the FedGov will be at something of a loss on what to do.

[publius]

If your two tools are a carrot and a stick, and the carrot doesn't work, what do you do?

[TallPine]

As far as this old "with-holding federal funds" thing goes, I wish people here in MT could see straight on this issue.

One of the reasons a western state like MT gets so much federal money, is that the feral govt owns so much of the property here: national forests, parks, and BLM land. If that land was private and the owners paying taxes, the fed money wouldn't look so good. Or better yet, if those public lands were state managed, then the state could be getting the mineral, grazing, and timber revenue from it. The state could manage those lands a lot better than the feds, IMO.

And hiway money ... well, the interstate system was conceived by Ike for purposes of moving troops and war supplies across country. So... let them withhold "their" money and let the interstates run down :p

Plus those missle silos: more expensive facilities upon which no property tax is being paid :cuss:

This isn't very popular, because I know a lot of ranchers who get a lot of federal money (CRP and other stuff) but I also know some who have never taken a dime since they homesteaded the land, and are proud of it. The funny thing is that those independent folks are actually better off financially -as in they own their place free and clear and have no debt. They know what works and what doesn't, and they do what works instead of what doesn't. They may drive older cars and pickups, and their equipment has a little gray hair, but they own everything they have, and have some money in the bank besides.

I'm not saying it won't get worse before it gets better, because it certainly would (heck, it might even get worse before it gets worse). Kind of like moving out of your parents' house and out on your own.

We either have to take a stand and stick with it, or get used to being told what to do by Komrades Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and Clinton ..... :rolleyes:

[Dead]

hmm sounds interesting... If they pass I might have to move... :)