Montana Gun Control Legislature

Status
Not open for further replies.

rshackleford

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
103
News on the Bill.

Montana loading another shot for states' rights

By The Associated Press
HELENA - Montana lawmakers are betting the words 'Made in Montana' might be able to trigger a court showdown with the federal government, while also freeing some gun owners and dealers from background check and licensing requirements.

Under a proposed law before the Legislature, firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation, potentially releasing some Montanans from national gun registration and licensing laws. The legislation could also free gun purchasers in the state from background checks.

Still, the bill's proponents say the measure has much bigger prey in its sights.

"Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I'd like to support that," said Republican Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill's sponsor. "But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights."
Gun rights and state rights both play well in Montana. The state's leading gun rights organization boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature in half as many years. And bills bucking federal control over wolf management, marijuana and wetland protection are also being considered. Unlike these others, though, the 'Made in Montana' measure has been intentionally drafted to draw the feds into court.

"The primary purpose is to set up a legal challenge but also to say we have a lot of really good people in Montana who do the right thing," said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

Montana gun manufacturers, known for specialty rifles that mirror models used in the 1800s to settle the West, are welcoming the bid for independence. The House has endorsed it with a 64-36 vote, and the Republican-controlled Senate could pass it easily.

State police associations, though, are watching this latest effort to thwart federal regulation with quiet concern. While they are not opposing the measure - a risky political stance in a gun-loving, big-sky, open-space kind of place - they are wondering just when the authorities the bill spurns might take a stand.

"I think the local elected officials I work for would certainly like to hear from the federal agency with responsibility in this area," said Jim Smith, director of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has not offered a position on the bill and did not return calls for comment.

"The bill clearly raises constitutional issues," said Kevin O'Brien of the state attorney general's office. "I think that's something that both proponents and opponents can agree on."

The measure would require the office to file a one-time declaratory judgment representing the new law on behalf of a Montana manufacturer.

At issue in any such court case would be federal authority over interstate commerce, the legal basis for gun regulation in the United States. Through the Constitution, Congress has authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handled past efforts to bypass what's known as the Commerce Clause, most recently in 2005 when the court upheld federal authority to regulate marijuana in California, even if its use is limited to noncommercial purposes - such as medical reasons - and it is grown and used within a state's borders.

Montana's current bid for sovereignty over guns, however, could fare better with the added firepower of being linked to a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms, say its proponents.

"It's only done because the firearms are a stronger case than, say, making doilies," Boniek said. "Knitting is not a constitutionally protected right."

However, Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said gun rights may not have much bearing on the bill's constitutional mettle. More important, he said, may be the "Made in Montana' stamp - and stay in Montana guideline - that lawmakers are proposing for the state's firearms.

In the Gonzalez v. Raich case argued by Barnett, the court said that because marijuana produced within and outside of California are essentially indistinguishable, the government must regulate both to enforce national drug laws. Montana, though, could potentially argue that its guns are sufficiently unique and segregated as to lie outside of overarching federal regulatory schemes, Barnett said.

The actual economic impact of the bill, pitched in part as a stimulus, is uncertain. The number of firearms made here lock, stock and barrel are limited, as are the number of Montanans available to buy them. For example, the gunmaker Shilo Sharps Rifles in Big Timber estimates that of the 800 or so custom guns it builds in a year, only between 20 and 30 are sold to state residents.

But the proponents say no matter - unregulate it, and they will come.

"We tend to break trail here in Montana," Marbut said.
 
Ask Angel Raich what happens when you fully comply with state law and have the full blessing of your state in your actions, in contravention of federal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

I mean I'm all for it, but don't expect to not be raided and/or jailed and/or killed by the jack boots in the process of claiming your rights.

Edit: Now I see that this was brought up by the article...

In the Gonzalez v. Raich case argued by Barnett, the court said that because marijuana produced within and outside of California are essentially indistinguishable, the government must regulate both to enforce national drug laws. Montana, though, could potentially argue that its guns are sufficiently unique and segregated as to lie outside of overarching federal regulatory schemes, Barnett said.

Hopefully, that distinction will ultimately fly - very very interesting. Go go gadget Montana!
 
Any AR, AK, M14 manufacturers in Montana?

if not, there should be some soon. keep in mind you have to go to Montana to buy it. once it leaves state lines it becomes interstate commerce.
 
once it leaves

You might want to double check on that. The seller sells in inside the state to a retailer or individual. Once the individual has it the scope of interstate commerce my have ended.
 
Well, IANAL, but it seems to me that if an individual goes to Montana, and buys a Montana-made firearm for the purpose of taking it out of the state with them, the buyer would be committing an act of interstate commerce. The seller would not.

Now, if a person in Montana buys a Montana-made firearm, then for unrelated reasons moves out of the state, and takes his property (including the firearm) with them, it would not be an act of interstate commerce, since at that point, moving the weapon out of the state is not an act of commerce at all.
 
The key words in the article.
"firearms, weapons components and ammunition MADE IN MONTANA and KEPT IN MONTANA would be exempt from federal regulation".
I wouldnt assume anything about them leaving the state for any reason without complying with law.
I see the law passing, and purchasers who are not complying with the existing federal law being arrested, being charged with possesion of an illegal firearm, at which time they will rat on the dealer who sold it, which in turn will look for the excuse to blame the state. Unfortunately states cannot be arrested for their peoples actions, so who do you think will do the time?
I think most dealers will follow federal law and do the checks as usual.
 
The bill has made it out of the legislature and is on the Governor's desk.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know how this law would effect machine gun manufacture, if at all?

As wonderful as this sounds, it seems incredibly unlikely courts would let this stand. :(
 
Does anyone know how this law would effect machine gun manufacture, if at all?

As wonderful as this sounds, it seems incredibly unlikely courts would let this stand.

i think that is the idea. i think Montana is trying to pick a fight. read the article at the billings gazette web site. i found it under the "state news" link.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/
 
I'm glad at least on the the states has the guts and the will to take the issue up. So much of our history has been distorted and important events left out that most of us don't even understand the proper roles between the states and the federal government.
 
Last edited:
The letter of the bill proposed specifically states that it will not apply to NFA firearms. I guess they are trying to win one step at a time. Hopefully Montana can help the rest of the states regain the rights we have lost over the years and turn back the federal expansion of powers. I am sad to have left that great state but will return as soon as possible.
 
Hmmmm... how about other arms, like, for example, switchblade or butterfly knives, which are incredibly handy and originally were "outlawed" through the infamous commerce clause, if I recall correctly.

Hmmmm, further.... Maybe Ayn Rand should have chosen Montana instead of Colorado for Gault's Gulch...

Hmmm.... you go, Montana!

Terry, 230RN
 
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow said:
In the Gonzalez v. Raich case argued by Barnett, the court said that because marijuana produced within and outside of California are essentially indistinguishable, the government must regulate both to enforce national drug laws. Montana, though, could potentially argue that its guns are sufficiently unique and segregated as to lie outside of overarching federal regulatory schemes, Barnett said.

Hopefully, that distinction will ultimately fly - very very interesting. Go go gadget Montana!
The 9th Circuit already heard a similar argument in US v. Stewart. They originally overturned the conviction for manufacturing a post-'86 machinegun, finding that 18 USC 922(o) was unconstitutional as it did not have a significant effect on interstate commerce. When the Justice Department appealed to SCOTUS, it was remanded to the 9th Circuit for it to reconsider "in light of Raich", and the conviction was upheld.

So if it were not for the "war on drugs," it would likely presently be legal to manufacture and own machine guns as long as you did not move them across state lines.
 
Montanans do it right!

I am a Montanan and fully believe that states should hold more power than the federal government. The founding fathers of this nation are rolling in their graves for what we've done to the United States and how we just cut a corner here and there on the constitution to end up having some states outlaw firearms almost all together! I am eighteen and currently in the process of building an ak47, I do not have to register in my state at all. The only thing I have to do is have a back ground check run on me for when I purchase the receiver and I don't ever have to let the feds know about it other then that one piece! It is my right as an American to own a firearm and if the government doesn't like it, then too bad! I've been scouring the internet trying to find what the bill will actually allow us to do now, but I've mainly only gotten information from our local newspaper about it(dailyinterlake) I love Montana... I guess they were trying to pass the bill with it allowing us to carry concealed weapons without a permit(I guess it didn't fly with this bill), which our congressmen said he will bring back in another bill!!! hoo-rah Montanans!
 
there are two bills on guns in our great state. one deals with montana's relationship with the federal government and one is a castle law plus a little extra. i don't have the bill numbers right now. check the billings gazette.
 
The key words in the article.
"firearms, weapons components and ammunition MADE IN MONTANA and KEPT IN MONTANA would be exempt from federal regulation".
I wouldnt assume anything about them leaving the state for any reason without complying with law.
I see the law passing, and purchasers who are not complying with the existing federal law being arrested, being charged with possesion of an illegal firearm, at which time they will rat on the dealer who sold it, which in turn will look for the excuse to blame the state. Unfortunately states cannot be arrested for their peoples actions, so who do you think will do the time?
I think most dealers will follow federal law and do the checks as usual.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that concept.

There are many examples of goods and produce being made/grown and sold exculsively within a state, but somehow fedgov.com finds a way to apply the Interstate Commerce Clause to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top