MT Freedom Firearms Act - Nullification of Federal Regs?

[TheIrishJedi]

Montana's nullification action is with regard to gun laws. Montana has declared that federal gun laws are invalid in the state of Montana on guns made in the state of Montana, used exclusively in the state of Montana, and never transported across state lines. This particular law applies to ammunition and gun accessories as well. This is now a law in Montana. It has been passed and signed by the governor. Similar laws are being formed in Utah, Tennessee, and Texas. Imagine the impact Campaign for Liberty could have in getting similar legislation passed with local efforts within our states.

Read this particular blog in detail here.

Legislative action on HB 246

Text of the bill:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:



Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".



Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 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 guaranty 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 guaranty 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 regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) 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 guaranty 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.

(5) 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.



Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:

(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.



Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.



Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.



Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.



Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].



Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

So now that HB 246 is law, what do you guys think?

 

[armoredman]

I think we're in for a heck of a 10th Amendment challenge in SCOTUS, and SCOTUS will rule against Montana for daring to defy the Feds...but I wish them all the best, and I love the idea! If a number of states were to have similar laws in place before Montanas' makes it to SCOTUS, they might have a better chance of it!

 

[rl2669]

a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device

Although they probably meant to exclude fully automatic firearms, as written it appears to exclude shotguns. It will be interesting to see what happens as Oct 1 rolls around.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I've been thinking on this a bit and I've come up with a thought or two: I think it is possible that the Federal government might look upon this movement in the states as a reason not to scrub any of its gun laws. While the Federal government might choose to put up a "small battle" to retain its control over the several states, it might do so only as a feint to make it look like it tried as a placation to the anti-gun-rights crowd. It might also consider "losing" such a battle as a means to placate any movement to eradicate all the standing federal anti-gun-rights laws.

Such a move or position taken by the Federal government would give one of its apparent favorite agencies lots of "work" (justification for that agencies existence) making sure all the arms made and intended to be kept within each of the several states STAY within those states.

It all depends upon where our illustrious leaders wish to take their stand. Do they wish to take the final steps toward total federal domination over the states or back off and submit to the rightful sovereignty of the several individual states. I prefer the latter myself.

My only problem is failing in the big quest to unfetter our rights by settling for a placation wherein I am only truly free within my home state.

Ponder this we must.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

 

[rl2669]

I think it is possible that the Federal government might look upon this movement in the states as a reason not to scrub any of its gun laws

Do not underestimate the interstate commerce clause. IIRC, it was a supreme court case regarding gun-free zones around schools that marked one of the first times that this clause was held NOT to apply to whatever congress wishes it to.

My gut says that the same SCOTUS that gave us Heller would slap down Montana and any other state that tries to do this...

 

[Carbon Helix]

rl2669 wrote:

Although they probably meant to exclude fully automatic firearms, as written it appears to exclude shotguns. It will be interesting to see what happens as Oct 1 rolls around.

At first I was a little disappointed by them not including automatic firearms in the bill. (I figured if the state did not want automatics, the should still keep the feds from regulating them, then pass their own law against them.) However, I think it makes since this way. They want to fight the court case without any stigma of machine guns hanging over them.

As to your comment about the law excluding shotguns, you are absolutely right. Hopefully this gets correct. Heck, if it is after the court case has been settled (assuming a Montana victory) they could go back and completely remove that provision....wouldn't that stir up a kettle of fish.

 

[heviarti]

well, it does give a bright future to 20mm rifles. It's a shame they excluded automatics, as we've effectively legislated ourselves out of an inventive and synergistic military arms and design industry. Regulation discourages invention and innovation. The law already thumbs it's nose at most of the NFA... I don't see why they don't just go for the whole package. What are the feds going to do? Occupy Montana? that would create a volatile situation and a spark.

 

[engravertom]

My gut says that the same SCOTUS that gave us Heller would slap down Montana and any other state that tries to do this...

If so, I hope that Montana and any other states would have the courage of their convictions. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not what the court says about it. The court cannot overturn the Constitution, unless we let them.

I can't give the reference off the top of my head, but any unconstitutional law is null and void. I would hold that to be true for any unconstitutional court decision. Ultimately, We The People must read and obey the constitution for ourselves. And enforce it ourselves. That is at the core of what the second amendment is about.

Tom

 

[cbrgator]

I saw a guy on Glenn Beck that said it is unlikely to hold up and that it has holes in the text. He said the bills in TX and Utah I think? were being modeled after the MT one but closed the holes and had a better chance of being upheld.

 

[NotSoFast]

While not identical, this is similar.

In California, the state legalized marijuana for medical uses, by prescription. After a while the feds came in and shut down several shops in San Francisco because it was against federal law, pressing federal charges against the shop owners.

It could happen to the sellers of Montana manufactured weapons sold in Montana. In fact, I'd be surprized if they didn't do it at some point. You see, the feds, especially the bureaucrats, don't give a flip about upholding the Constitution.

 

[TheIrishJedi]

While not identical, this is similar.

In California, the state legalized marijuana for medical uses, by prescription. After a while the feds came in and shut down several shops in San Francisco because it was against federal law, pressing federal charges against the shop owners.

It could happen to the sellers of Montana manufactured weapons sold in Montana. In fact, I'd be surprized if they didn't do it at some point. You see, the feds, especially the bureaucrats, don't give a flip about upholding the Constitution.

And the California Police often assist in such situations. I always wonder why, instead of holding back the crowd, they don't shoot or arrest these federal kidnappers and protect their citizens. It would probably be the same way in Montana.

 

[engravertom]

In California, the state legalized marijuana for medical uses, by prescription. After a while the feds came in and shut down several shops in San Francisco because it was against federal law, pressing federal charges against the shop owners.

This has caused me to rethink my views on legalizing drugs. I'm just about in a libertarian place now. Not easy for a "religious" conservative, but right is right.

And the California Police often assist in such situations. I always wonder why, instead of holding back the crowd, they don't shoot or arrest these federal kidnappers and protect their citizens. It would probably be the same way in Montana.

We need some "lesser magistrates" to step up, Govenors, sheriffs, etc. It would take great courage, and serious popular support.

Perhaps they have turned up the heat too quickly, and the frog is waking up at last.

Tom

 

[highorder]

In California, the state legalized marijuana for medical uses, by prescription. After a while the feds came in and shut down several shops in San Francisco because it was against federal law, pressing federal charges against the shop owners.

But if you recall, about six weeks ago AG Holder stated that the DEA would no longer be doing this.

He said that the DEA will only go after clinics, people, etc. that are violating State and Federal law.

In essence, he claimed the DEA would be backing off marajuana...

I'd imagine that NOT taking the same attitude toward a similar situation would make the .gov a bit hypocritical?...

(yeah, I know.)

 

[Carbon Helix]

Also in the California decision (not to justify it by any means) the court said that pot grown legally in California could in no significant way be differentiated from pot grown else where. This was their claim to justify using the interstate commerce clause.

The Montana law (and the others similar) acknowledge this part of the decision by requiring the clear marking 'Made in Montana' to be stamped on the firearms. Whether this is enough to get it through is a different story entirely.