Montana Firearms Freedom Act

[azmjs]

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.

Indeed. We settled the nullification 'question' for good with the civil war.

It certainly takes a bit of gall for a federal welfare recipient state like Montana to ignore the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

I wonder if there is a correlation between these states with constitutionally ignorant legislatures (and therefore, one might deduce, electorates!) and reliance on federal welfare.

You don't see donor states like California and New York passing stupid, obviously-on-their-face-unconstitutional laws like this.

 

[azmjs]

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

Not funny, predictable.

There's an excellent way to model the aptitudes of a given population called the "bell curve."

One of the fundamental truths that people tend to forget is that 50% of the population is below-average. 10% is significantly below average.

It turns out that many of these states with constitutionally ignorant legislatures are also low-achieving states which receive federal spending welfare from places like California and New York.

 

[Guillermo]

azmjs, you are new here and are not being very HighRoad.

Suggest that you chill a bit or expect a moderator to step in.



The bottom line is that the Feds do not have the right to regulate firearms. Montana took a step to chip away at the unConstitutional and overbearing brownshirts.

Fruitless effort, I agree.

As to your assertion that Cali and NY don't pass legislation like this, you are correct. They pass legislation abridging rights, not trying to restore them.

 

[azmjs]

"brown shirts"

?

Is that what constitutes being "high road."

High irony, at the very least.

The bottom line is, in actual fact, that the federal government has every right to regulate firearms, through for example its explicitly enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.

 

[hugh damright]

the federal government has every right to regulate firearms, through for example its explicitly enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.

I can see how there is some connection ... for instance, if a State had a company that made guns e.g. pocket pistols, and every State around them banned the transportation of pocket pistols, then that company would be landlocked and unable to engage in interstate commerce, so I think it follows that the federal government is empowered to require that the states allow transportation of pocket pistols ... but the idea that the interstate commerce power embraces a general gun control power seems untenable to me, and for Montana to say that guns made in Montana and kept in Montana are an intrastate affair doesn't seem like nullification to me, it seems like clarification.

 

[azmjs]

I can see how there is some connection ... for instance, if a State had a company that made guns e.g. pocket pistols, and every State around them banned the transportation of pocket pistols, then that company would be landlocked and unable to engage in interstate commerce, so I think it follows that the federal government is empowered to require that the states allow transportation of pocket pistols ... but the idea that the interstate commerce power embraces a general gun control power seems untenable to me, and for Montana to say that guns made in Montana and kept in Montana are an intrastate affair doesn't seem like nullification to me, it seems like clarification.

There is no question that the government's regulatory power has its limits, for example, it cannot ban the ownership of firearms, or prevent their use for legitimate purposes such as sporting or self-defense, due to the protections offered by the second amendment.

In order for Montana or any other state to even begin to argue that a machine gun built and kept there was not subject to the interstate commerce clause - and it is important to note that the state could only argue this opinion, never dictate it - it would need to produce and process all of its own raw materials, power, etc etc as well as handle all of its own banking and finance.

Beyond this, there is the fact that American citizens are free to pursue commerce across state lines, and that a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce is at best subject to the will of the federal government.

It may well be unconstitutional for a state to presume to declare that certain goods could not be sold over state lines. Absent the power to make and enforce such a decree, it's unclear what basis Montana would have in the first place for claiming that goods made there were isolated from interstate commerce.

There may very well be a catch-22 at work where our freedom of interstate commerce makes all commerce into significantly potentially interstate commerce.

 

[Guillermo]

perhaps a little read of the Federalist II and you would realize that the Feds do not have an unlimited power to regulate something just because it crosses a boarder.

perhaps if you were to read the law in question, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, there is no crossing of boarders.

It is no surprise that you do not understand these things or the difference between calling an overbearing government agent a brownshirt and suggesting that anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

I suspect that you are not long for this board

 

[gc70]

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.

I suspect there is no serious expectation that the Firearms Freedoms Act laws will be upheld in federal court. Indeed, the Firearms Freedoms Act laws are about as symbolic a formal challenge as the states could raise to federal power, since they have no real effect on federal activities. However, the laws are a polite and official way of telling the federal government that it has gone far enough and to begin backing off.

If we look at our country's history, we see that the American Revolution did not spring from a spontaneous act of violence on April 19, 1775. Instead, pressure had been building for a dozen years with the colonial governments protesting encroachments by the King and Parliament. Since there was no peaceful process to resolve the differences, armed revolution was the result.

I believe the Firearms Freedoms Act laws are an early manifestation of the willingness of the states to begin pushing back against the federal government. They may be meek and symbolic challenges at this point, but they do show growing frustration with the over-reach of the federal government. The REAL ID Act is more interesting as a potential future flashpoint. The REAL ID Act was adopted in 2005, with a 2008 implementation date. The federal government has already flinched by granting extension requests, or providing unsolicited extensions, to all 50 states. Half of the states have taken action to decline to participate altogether.

Whether it is the adoption of Firearms Freedom Act laws or the states' refusal to comply with the REAL ID Act, the states are rediscovering their ability to exert collective power against the federal government. Unlike the British colonies, the states will not need to resort to armed revolution if the federal government is unresponsive - 34 like-minded states can simply call for a constitutional convention and change the rules to suit their tastes.

Stay tuned, because the next decade should be very interesting.

 

[azmjs]

perhaps a little read of the Federalist II and you would realize that the Feds do not have an unlimited power to regulate something just because it crosses a boarder.

The Federalist II won't teach you anything about any developments in constitutional law since it was written.

I never called people who disagreed with me idiots. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote more carefully.

You might be surprised to learn whether or not you can come up with compelling answers to the questions I raised.

Ignoring things you don't already agree with is a road to mediocrity, and is probably one of the reasons for the low quality legislation coming out of Montana.

I suppose while we're at it, you might want to look up precisely what it it a "brown shirt" did in the real world. A lot of people take offense to trivialization of the Holocaust.

I shudder to think about the mentality that considers making a mockery of the crimes of Nazi Germany an exercise in "taking the high road."

 

[hugh damright]

34 like-minded states can simply call for a constitutional convention and change the rules to suit their tastes.

While that is the system that we are provided with, I question if the federal government would recognize such an amendment, especially if the 34 States contain a minority of the people ... of course, we were also provided with a system where the 34 States would be organized into well regulated militia and the federal government would have no standing army, such that the federal government might be forced to comply ...

 

[Guillermo]

I shudder to think about the mentality that considers making a mockery of the crimes of Nazi Germany an exercise in "taking the

I shutter to think of the person that supports a government that gives a Medal of Honor to a man who shoots a civilian woman holding a baby.

 

[gc70]

While that is the system that we are provided with, I question if the federal government would recognize such an amendment

"Breaking News: Washington refuses to recognize Constitutional Convention legally called by States"

That would certainly be a news cycle to follow closely.

 

[hugh damright]

"Breaking News: Washington refuses to recognize Constitutional Convention legally called by States"

Probably more like "Breaking News: States attempt to amend the US Constitution with complete disregard for the US Congress and the will of the people."

 

[azmjs]

I shutter to think of the person that supports a government that gives a Medal of Honor to a man who shoots a civilian woman holding a baby.

If this is meant to be in reference to the American government, and some obscure axe you have to grind with an MoH recipient, not only am I not ashamed of supporting our country, I am deeply proud of it.

 

[azmjs]

While that is the system that we are provided with, I question if the federal government would recognize such an amendment, especially if the 34 States contain a minority of the people ... of course, we were also provided with a system where the 34 States would be organized into well regulated militia and the federal government would have no standing army, such that the federal government might be forced to comply ...

Which procedure is it you believe the federal government can use to "ignore" amendments to the constitution?

 

[Sam1911]

[Mod Talk: Knock off the personal bickering. If this debate can't be held politely, we won't hold it at all.]

 

[Jamie B]

If this is meant to be in reference to the American government, and some obscure axe you have to grind with an MoH recipient, not only am I not ashamed of supporting our country, I am deeply proud of it.

It is a direct reference to Lon Horiuchi.

Any good, intelligent, God fearing American should be ashamed of him.

 

[azmjs]

It is a direct reference to Lon Horiuchi.

Any good, intelligent, God fearing American should be ashamed of him.

Lon Horiuchi never received the Medal of Honor...

I have a much harder time being ashamed of Lon Horiuchi than I do being ashamed of the scum who brainwashed their own kids to be cop-killers. Justice may not have been served in the most mundane sense with the accidental shooting of that woman, but it's hard to argue she didn't get what she richly deserved. Maybe a Lord-works-in-mysterious-ways sort of thing.

So is the hope that if Montana is permitted to play its machine-gun shell game, that in future shootouts between criminals/lunatics and the police, the bad guys will have machine guns and be able to kill more policemen before being apprehended or shot? Is that why "Medal of Honor" recipient Lon Horiuchi was mentioned? Why else mention him and what happened at Ruby Ridge?

 

[Sam1911]

This is absurd. Lon Horiuchi and Randy Weaver both had their days in court (or as close as they're likely to get) -- we aren't trying them again, here.