Montana House of Representatives votes to ignore Federal Gun Laws

[phoglund]

This bill has one more vote to make it through the State House of Representatives. "Roger Koopman's, R-Bozeman, HB 366 would exempt guns made in Montana from federal regulation under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, as long as the guns remain inside the state." 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. If this all passes it might be interesting to see what will be made here and what the Feds try to do about it. Full text of Article linked below:

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/02/15/news/anti.txt

Comments?

UPDATE: This bill made it through it's third vote and has been sent to the Montana Senate.

 

[jefnvk]

If it goes through, I may consider an academic move to Montana.

Even though that was about the only place I'd have gone anyways to begin with.

 

[Standing Wolf]

In exactly two words: Thanks, Montana!

 

[Wildalaska]

About as useful as laws mandating trigger locks on guns, more silliness....

WildhohumAlaska

 

[citizen]

.....which poses the question, "Is Montana an otherwise gun-friendly state"?
(Good place to live?)

 

[Devonai]

Yeah, ho hum until somebody starts producing class III weapons under an LLC in Montana.

Goody for them.

 

[Third_Rail]

Wildalaska, you sure are a pessimist sometimes.


What exactly would the Fed.Gov do if 30+ states had laws like this?

 

[Dmack_901]

The title of this thread is a little misleading, they are voting to ignore an unconstitutional law, not just a law. And in a way this story isn't new. The US v. Stewart case is based on the same idea. Basically the federal government has placed restrictions on items that the constitution does give it the ability to. Since these guns have never been, and never would have, been transported interstate, the feds can't regulate it. If you want to read up on it here are the 3 main points:
1. US Constitution, Atricle I, Section 8, Clause 3 (powers of congress)
2. U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 922 (what congress did)
3. Petition to Supreme Court (what they say about it)

And really, if you want to get deep into it, the point is not whether "truely homemade" guns are legal, but whether guns made of parts which have been transported interstare are subject to federal law. Now it's a bit more complicated than how i said it, but you all know that, and if you don't then that's why I posted those links.

 

[beerslurpy]

I think I just may buy some property up in Montana, for recreational purposes.

It would be awesome if there was anything up there that you could make money from, like programming.

 

[RealGun]

My understanding is that the machine gun restriction in the 1930s was based upon the argument that they might be transported between federal properties within a state. Being granted that point, the feds had jurisdiction everywhere. Since that logic is such a convenient stretch, the law is discredited. Unless Montana contains no federal property, they would not have grounds to be exempt from federal interstate commerce restrictions without having other laws struck down, which would be pretty refreshing. In effect they are challenging the interstate commerce clause, which does not depend upon crossing state lines.

 

[Kinsman]

IIRC, this is not the only instance where the pernicious "interstate commerce" clause is being brought into question.

Hey Slurpy...can't you program from a distance?

 

[phoglund]

Is Montana a gun friendly state? From the Montana Constitution:

Section 12. Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

(Note: Montana is a "Shall Issue" state.)

Perhaps this law is merely a exercise in sending a message to the Federal Government with no practical advantage but I like it anyway!

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

List of places to retire just got longer!!!!!!

New State Motto: Montana, The anti-Komiefornia
I wish this would work and that Tesas would soon follow !!!!!!!

 

[TallPine]

Basically, the one-finger salute from Montana to DC

We have an "Alaska carry" law in the works, too

 

[RealGun]

Section 12. Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Perhaps it went unnoticed that this is not written in the same spirit as the Second Amendment. It makes no allowance for overthrowing bad governments and thus the allowance for ownership and bearing of militarily competitive weapons. It is hardly a utopian ideal for a State.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Wildalaska, you sure are a pessimist sometimes.

No. He just seems to support reasonable gun-control laws.

~G. Fink

 

[Wildalaska]

No. He just seems to support reasonable gun-control laws.

Sure do...I support reasonable gun control laws that are constituionally appropriate when analyzing the 2nd am in light of well settled constituional principles. Those I think are not appropriate I obey anyway, work against those that are worth working against as opposed to those laws I just roll my eyes at..

And included in that law I roll my eyes at, is this Montana law. Ya wanna shoot the bird to DC, ya dont need to pass a law.

WildbutheydidntyaknowthatAlaska

 

[Gordon Fink]

Maybe they don’t care about highway funds or whatever other benefits the feds can withdraw in punishment.

~G. Fink

 

[kbarrett]

Reasonable? Only for an FFL SOT.

There are no reasonable gun control laws.

None of the laws passed since 1933 have done anything to make anyone safer.


Montana is doing exactly the right thing, in my opinion.

 

[kbarrett]

Maybe they don’t care about highway funds or whatever other benefits the feds can withdraw in punishment.

You mean like they talked about to punish Nevada and Montana for ignoring the 55 mph limit?

How diid that turn out, btw? I seem to recall the feds blinked and ran away.

 

[TallPine]

Ok, whatever you say ... Mildalaska

 

[phoglund]

When the Feds mandated 55 mph speed limit, Montana did indeed have a 55 mph speed limit enacted, with a $5 fine imposed and payable on the spot. Enforcement wasn't exactly strict.

 

[Gordon Fink]

All kidding aside, before folks start moving to Montana, ask Californian doctors and patients what happened when they started prescribing and taking pharmaceuticals forbidden by the federal government.

~G. Fink

 

[Wildalaska]

Mildalaska

A yes the name calling. Gee I forgot how much fun it was to post things contrary to the extremists.....

There are no reasonable gun control laws.

Uhhh...OK.....now thats a position supported by the Courts.....

None of the laws passed since 1933 have done anything to make anyone safer.

OK....lets test this....every gangbanger released from prison will be issued a full auto AK...two if they are certifably psychotic......

WildheeeeeeeeeerewegoagainAlaska

 

[buzz_knox]

IIRC, this is not the only instance where the pernicious "interstate commerce" clause is being brought into question.

It's safe to say that when the national gov't acts in any arena outside of foreign relations or taxation, it relies upon the commerce clause for authority. For example, civil rights legislation was based largely on the commerce clause, because the goal was to affect individual behavior, which the 14th Amendment had no application to. So, Congress found that discrimination had an effect on interstate commerce and thus could be regulated.