Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Montana Firearms Freedom Act

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Lou McGopher, Jul 20, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lou McGopher

    Lou McGopher Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    507
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/030403.html

    Text of the bill:
    http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

    I remember reading somewhere that the Governor of Texas mentioned doing the same thing, although I don't know if that went anywhere.
     
  2. DHJenkins

    DHJenkins Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,022
    Location:
    South Texas
    In TX, the anti's stalled until the session was over. Gov. Perry is set to call a special session, but I think the only 2A stuff that's going to see the light of day during that is campus carry.
     
  3. TX1911fan

    TX1911fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    This could end up as a pretty interesting fight. You just need a gun shop willing to take a chance. If the GOA or NRA agreed to defend them, we might see a case. I put my money on the feds winning. I hate that Commerce Clause BS, but the Supreme Court has upheld it time and again.
     
  4. AZCOWBOY

    AZCOWBOY Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    10
  5. Big Mike

    Big Mike Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    Panhandle, FL
    OK.

    Curious, what manufacturers are in Montana?
     
  6. Lou McGopher

    Lou McGopher Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    507
    Anybody who's brave enough to challenge the BATF?
     
  7. meytind

    meytind Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    New York
    Hope we win! The long term repercussions of the Federal government losing this case would be unbelievable.
     
  8. RDak

    RDak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    362
    Location:
    Michigan
    Anyone have the link to that old 1930's case SCOTUS ruled on that had to do with a farmer growing stuff for local sale?

    IIRC, that case had to be the one of the dumbest decisions by the SCOTUS in history. Got to be in the top five IMHO.
     
  9. Lou McGopher

    Lou McGopher Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    507
    RDak, was it anything like when it ruled that medical marijuana grown, sold, and consumed in California fell under federal jurisdiction because it might affect the interstate market for illegal marijuana?
     
  10. RDak

    RDak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    362
    Location:
    Michigan
    Never heard of that case but it sure sounds about as ridiculous!! :D:D:D

    ETA: I bet that marijuana case cited the case I was asking about?
     
  11. Lou McGopher

    Lou McGopher Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    507
    Maybe. I think it was a lot more recent than the 1930s, though. :)

    Either way, it just goes to show how weasely the govt will get in order to curtail our liberty.
     
  12. Aaron Baker

    Aaron Baker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    695
    Location:
    Lexington, KY
    The wheat case is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). It was no doubt cited by the more recent case deciding that just because marijuana was illegal on a federal level, that doesn't mean that the government can't regulate the legal intrastate commerce of marijuana because of the affect it has on the illegal interstate commerce of marijuana.

    Wickard has always been one of my least favorite cases.

    If I recall, Montana's act doesn't allow machine guns. Too bad. That's the real test case. Obviously if you build a suppressor in Montana, that means you didn't buy one from another state (and pay the $200 tax stamp). That means you're clearly affecting interstate commerce a la Wickard.

    What about machine guns, though? There's no new manufacture of machine guns, unlike wheat, weed and suppressors. So if you build a new machine gun, then what interstate affect does that have? None. You couldn't have bought a new machine gun from another state either.

    Of course, I suppose the Supreme Court could say its affecting the interstate commerce in used machine guns. We'd just have to see.

    Aaron
     
  13. 25cschaefer

    25cschaefer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    942
    Location:
    Flathead Valley, MT
    Probably the most famous is Cooper Firearms
    Montana Rifleman, they make the 1999 action
    Serengeti Rifles
    Lilja Precision Rifle Barrels
    Mundon Enterprises does a lot of custom work
    Elite Iron makes awesome suppressors
    C. Sharps Arms Inc.
    Rocky Mountain Rifles

    I know I am missing a few and there are a ton of stock, barrel and accessory makers in MT
     
  14. gatorjames85

    gatorjames85 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    457
    Location:
    N. Central FL
    See Wickard v. Filburn, above and Gonzales v. Raich. I don't think we are going to win this one, as much as I would like to.
     
  15. hermannr

    hermannr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    976
    Location:
    Okanogan Highlans
    Buffalo Bore. "Made in Montana" (not "made in the US") I bet those boys would just love an excuse to manufacture firearms too.
     
  16. hirundo82

    hirundo82 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    The Deep South
    US v. Stewart is also binding precedent in this case since Montana is in the 9th Circus.
     
  17. henschman

    henschman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    This law is an example of nullification and interposition. The point of nullification isn't to win a Supreme Court case... nullification challenges the notion that the Supreme Court is the sole interpreter of the constitution. The idea is that states can interpret the constitution themselves, and when the national government is in violation of it, can "nullify" the unconstitutional law within their borders and the state government can interpose itself to protect its citizens from agents of the national government who attempt to enforce it within their territory.
     
  18. belercous

    belercous Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    295
    Location:
    edwardsville, ILL
    Justice Kennedy has stated that he will not overturn the present understanding of the Commerce Clause (which began with Wickard). Justice Kennedy is the swing vote, all close cases are directed towards him. (And he loves it.)

    The Montana Firearms Freedom Act has no chance of being held constitutional, at least by SCOTUS in its present incarnation. To do so would make state law supreme over federal law, which the Constitution is quite clear about. The M.F.F.A. is pure political posturing, but nothing more.

    The idea of state nullification, while popular in the early 19th Cent., was pretty much settled 150 yrs. ago. In legal circles, the notion has no traction and is not taken seriously.

    Also note; the Gonzales v. Raich case held that the federal gov. could prosecute cannabis growers in compliance with their state's law. It re-affirrmed the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

    The case of U.S. v. Lopez (for the first time after the New Deal) struck down a federal law prohibiting firearms near a school zone as an over-reach of the Commerce Clause. However, the same basic law was then passed by Congress which included the language of "finding" which linked firearms to "interstate commerce." The same basic law (guns & school zones) is now valid. Or at least SCOTUS doesn't have a problem with it.
     
  19. Prosser

    Prosser Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,451
    Freedom Arms?
     
  20. kingpin008

    kingpin008 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,435
    Location:
    Howard County, Merry Land
    Unless it was a machine gun of totally new (or even sufficiently different) design. If there's not another one like it, how am I supposed to buy one from out of state?
     
  21. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,074

    You just need to read the Raich case with a legal mind.

    In Raich they declared someone growing something on private land, using nothing that is part of any commerce whatsoever, for personal use, never sold or intended to be sold in the state or outside of the state (0 commerce), was still effecting the black market in marijuana.
    The logic is that by growing their own they would no longer need to buy it from the illegal black market, that would result in reduced demand on that black market, and as a result they were having an effect on commerce.


    So it does not even need to be a legal market being affected according to Raich. Making your own illegal machinegun gun means you would not be participating in the illegal black market for new machineguns using the Raich logic. Thus you would be having an impact on the illegal machinegun black market.
    Legal market, illegal market, it doesn't matter according to Raich.
    In fact according to Raich not being part of commerce (which was previously needed to trigger the commerce clause) has an impact on commerce, and thus by having nothing to do with commerce it is effecting commerce.
    Mental gymnastics.


    Also Wickard was nowhere near as damning as Raich, Wickard may be cited, even by the court, by that involved a guy in a contract with the government, a guy that agreed to grow only a specific amount in order to be paid many times the market value through subsidy.
    He entered into that contract of his own free will, the government didn't just say what someone could and could not do on their own free land, Wickard thought it was a good deal and signed up and proceeded to violate that contract.
    Modern interpretations interpreting that case to grant more power are a perversion of justice and taking it out of context.

    Raich on the other hand does specifically grant the government all encompassing power over anything they say. How it applies to guns was well shown in the Stewart case, which was decided by the SCOTUS unofficially.

    Under Raich logic even rain falling from the sky and collected on private land and used for personal use only would be subject to the commerce clause. It would reduce how much water the person needed to buy, thus having an impact on demand for water.
    There is nothing outside of federal jurisdiction based on the Raich logic, unless the SCOTUS specifically says otherwise, because under Raich logic everything can be covered.
     
  22. ArfinGreebly

    ArfinGreebly Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    11,690
    Location:
    North Idaho
    Chaos Theory

    The Raich reasoning can been envisioned as an exercise in Chaos Theory.

    And, yes, I look forward to the day when that's finally remedied.

     
  23. henschman

    henschman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    You mean it was settled by the Civil War? That wasn't exactly over Nullification... the issue there was secession. That does bring up a good point though... if a state went through with nullification, the only remedy the national government would have would be to send in the troops, like they did in Hoxie, AR in the 1950s to force school integration. It would definitely take guts on the part of a state government to go through with nullification, and even more so for interposition... you are basically calling the national government's bluff and daring them to try to stop you. But it would take some political will on the part of the national government to actually do something about it, as well.

    I wouldn't say it gets no traction or isn't taken seriously legal circles, either... when I was in law school, we discussed the topic thoroughly, and it was taken seriously. These days, I am hearing more and more discussion of it. Since the theory doesn't rely on supreme court precedent or anything like that, it's not so easy to call it moot or settled... all it takes is enough people in a state with the guts to give it a try. I am personally encouraged by the increase in interest in nullification, and would like to see some states give it a go. The more states that do it, the harder it would be for the feds to do anything about it.
     
  24. pikid89

    pikid89 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,556
    Location:
    The Gator Nation
    Freedom, Wyoming
     
  25. mboylan

    mboylan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    556
    Nullification is not a new idea. It's been tried before. The standard response has been military force or threat of military force. The first really serious attempt in the Carolinas ended with Andrew Jackson threatening to hang the state legislature for treason.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page