Anti-federal bills move forward in Montana House

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Libertyteeth

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
174
Location
Manhattan, Montana
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
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
For instance, Montana has exempted itself successfully from the federal law prohibiting possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a school.
Click to expand...
I thought the SCOTUS struck that down, since it effectively disenfranchised everyone who lived within 1/5th of a mile of a school.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

They'll divert it to New Jersey, Maryland or California as anti-gun money disguised as "anti-crime" money.
 
Could the federal government take away federal funds if the states don't pass laws matching what the federal government wants them to do?
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The only thing that's saved Utah from the Liberal invasion is the presence of all the conservative Mormons.
Click to expand...
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:
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Montana House of Representatives votes to ignore Federal Gun Laws
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
pax
P
F
  • Locked
Montana passes house bill excluding firearms from fed government control
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
132
Views
10K
Art Eatman
A
L
  • Locked
Gary Marbut: Montana bills of interest
Replies
1
Views
656
Captain Crunch
C
M
  • Locked
Montana House Shoots Down Federal Gun Control
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
SHvar
S
R
  • Locked
Montana Gun Control Legislature
Replies
21
Views
1K
MarkDido
MarkDido
Back
Top