Montana Firearms Freedom Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the subject of making citizens into LEO's for the purpose of buying prohibited weapons, I suppose a pro-liberty sheriff's department could do the same thing, by deputizing anyone who wants to buy such guns. The citizen could pay the purchase price, and the department could procure the guns and "issue" them. I know sheriffs' deputies here in Oklahoma frequently purchase their own duty weapons.

I might have to check on this, but I don't think a sheriff's department would necessarily be limited to deputizing people in their own county, or even their own state.

If just one Sheriff in one county somewhere in this country started doing this, I don't see why he couldn't deputize and issue weapons to anybody anywhere in the country.

Hmm, I kinda like that idea! I think I might even know of some Sheriffs who would be up for something like that.
 
Last edited:
Update: Montana House Bill No. 381

Things appear to be getting more interesting:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0381.htm

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT CREATING THE OFFENSES OF WRONGFUL ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR ORDERS; AND PROVIDING A PENALTY."

Section 1. Wrongful enforcement of federal firearms laws -- penalties. (1) A peace officer, state official, or official of a political subdivision MAY NOT ENFORCE a law, regulation, or order of the United States that conflicts with the provisions of Title 30, chapter 20, part 1

(2) An official, agent, or employee of the United States who purposely or knowingly enforces a law, regulation, or order of the United States relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in this state that conflicts with the provisions of Title 30, chapter 20, part 1, is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 1 year, fined an amount not to exceed $2,000, or both.
Click to expand...
Title 30 Chapter 20 is the Montana Firearms Freedom Act:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/30_20_1.htm
 
Also:
House Bill No. 448
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0448.htm
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT ENACTING THE INTERSTATE FIREARM FREEDOM COMPACT AS AN INTERSTATE COMPACT AND AUTHORIZING THE GOVERNOR TO EXECUTE AND ENTER INTO THE COMPACT WITH OTHER STATES."
Click to expand...

And:
House Bill No. 382
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0382.htm
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT PROHIBITING INFRINGEMENT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO NULLIFICATION OF ANY FEDERAL STATUTE, MANDATE, OR EXECUTIVE ORDER CONSIDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE STATE; ENACTING THE MONTANA NULLIFICATION REAFFIRMATION ACT; AND PROVIDING A RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY DATE."
Click to expand...
Dunno why I didn't hear about these a month ago, but I would be very pleased to see these make it into law. Moving to Montana would definitely be in my future then.
 
Interfering with Federal agents is a Federal felony. The laws are more feel good and would get struck down in court. The Civil War is over. The response to arresting a Federal agent for performing his duties would be swift and merciless.

Nullification has not been viable since the Madison administration and really not before that either.
 
Last edited:
Funny that so many states are passing laws to nullify federal laws, then, must be a LOT of reaallly stupid people out there, eh? Or maybe they remember Real ID, too...
 
Just another bit of political posturing. These bills are no more likely to be upheld than the original act.

Apparently the Montana legislature doesn't have many people who understand constitutional law.
 
If nothing else, Montana jeopardizes its receipt of federal funds. During 2007-2009 federal funding received by Montana averaged $9.48 billion (almost twice as much as Montana residents paid in federal income taxes).

State nullification isn't going anywhere.
 
does this mean that someone in montana could make a SBR or AOW legally?
showthread.php
 
Last edited:
Montana, Arizona, Wyoming, I forget how many states passed FFA acts, 5 or 6, maybe.
Edit, the AZ one is specific to say no NFA style stuff is allowed yet.
 
You are missing the whole point of nullification if you think that the state legislature is worried about whether these laws will be upheld in federal court.

As far as I can tell, none of these laws are ordering state police to arrest federal agents... they are just providing penalties to state police who help to enforce the federal laws.
 
henschman said:
You are missing the whole point of nullification if you think that the state legislature is worried about whether these laws will be upheld in federal court....
Click to expand...
And if not expressly struck down in federal court, they will just wind up in that junk yard of old, meaningless laws that are the grist of humorous columns in Sunday newspapers after a slow new week.
 
A state can "nullify" all it wants, but such measures mean NOTHING in this situation. It's the federal government and the federal court system prosecuting you, not the state.

Funny that so many states are passing laws to nullify federal laws, then, must be a LOT of reaallly stupid people out there, eh?
Click to expand...

No, it means the legislators are hoping the gun owners are stupid enough to think these laws actually mean something. But it won't be the politicians going to federal prison!

does this mean that someone in montana could make a SBR or AOW legally?
Click to expand...

Only if you fully abide by existing federal law. The state never had anything to do with the NFA anyway. Please do not build an SBR in one of these states and expect the state law to be any protection.
 
Last edited:
Is anyone here willing to commit the multiple federal felonies necessary to effectuate the intent of these laws? As for RealId, that is a totally different situation. The states would have to actively participate to effectuate RealId. An a federal prosecutor and a federal judge are all that is necessary to effectuate the NFA.
 
I would venture a guess that since there are not all that many ATF and FBI agents per capita compared to state police, many NFA convictions occur because of state police forwarding a case to the feds when they discover a violation. This law would prohibit that.
 
No, I don't think so, I think it would set up a Tenth Amendment challenge that the federal law is itself in violation of the Constitution, in that the power in question is NOT a Federal power, but one reserved to the states or the people via Amendment Number 10. No, I don't have the time or money to challenge any of these laws, and I can only hope someone A) does and B) wins...but then again, Heller wasn't supposed to win and McDonald wasn't supposed to be able to happen. We'll see, and yes, to all you legal scholars out there, I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and have no formal legal training, so maybe I'm whistling through the graveyard. So what, maybe we'll get lucky. If not, we'll try a different angle.
 
I don't think a sheriff's department would necessarily be limited to deputizing people in their own county, or even their own state.


I don't think much of a sheriff who would deputize someone just so they can get a NFA weapon.
 
For those who haven't yet recieved the memo, the 10A pretty much is limited to unfunded federal mandates. An attorney defending a client on 10A grounds (unless demanded by his/her client) would be committing legal malpractice.

These "laws" carry no more legal weight than my declaration of being the first King and sovereign ruler of Illinois. Great for comedic purposes, but they have zero chance of being upheld in court.
 
These "laws" carry no more legal weight than my declaration of being the first King and sovereign ruler of Illinois. Great for comedic purposes, but they have zero chance of being upheld in court.
Click to expand...

+1.
It's all feel good stuff.
 
we'll let the courts hash it out, where the real experts are.
Click to expand...

Some of us work in the court system, where it is our job to advise people on the impact of laws and precedent. I am certain that any competent attorney or judge would tell you that these laws will do absolutely nothing so long as the federal government has chosen to extensively regulate firearms.
 
belercous said:
Apparently the Montana legislature doesn't have many people who understand constitutional law.
Click to expand...

Poppycock. These people are STANDING upon constitutional ground which just so happens to be constitutional law. Is what you are saying that unconstitutional laws usurping power have the same weight as constitutional law? Obviously, unconstitutional laws only have standing if they are ALLOWED to stand. The people in Montana know what's right, know what they are doing, and I wish them God speed and a joining in the cause of and a whole lot of support from the rest of the several states.

Woody
 
The State authorities should then arrest and imprison the feds that try to arrest
anyone abiding by Montana law.
Click to expand...

That would tend to violate the Supremacy Clause, among other pillars of the American way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Permitless carry in Montana - Maybe...
Replies
9
Views
504
phoglund
P
M
  • Locked
Montana leading the charge in the 2A
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Liberty or Death 86
L
M
  • Locked
Montana Firearm's Freedom Act
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
husbandofaromanian
H
T
  • Locked
MT Freedom Firearms Act - Nullification of Federal Regs?
Replies
13
Views
997
Carbon Helix
C
L
  • Locked
Gary Marbut: Montana bills of interest
Replies
1
Views
656
Captain Crunch
C
Back
Top