Montana passes house bill excluding firearms from fed government control

Status
Not open for further replies.

fiend

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
5
Saw this on ar15.com, could NOT find a dupe thread in in a search. If it's a dupe please lock. This needs to get out!


You can read the bill at: data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HB0420.htm


2007 Montana Legislature

HOUSE BILL NO. 420

INTRODUCED BY R. KOOPMAN


A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA."

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:

(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) "Manufactured" means creating a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Prohibition. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

NEW SECTION. Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

NEW SECTION. Section 6. Marking of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

NEW SECTION. Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].

- END -

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

Anti-federal bills move forward in HouseBy 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.
..........................................
Federal standards, she said, amount to a national ID card. Critics fear that such standards will lead to the government tracking its citizens.
.....................................

Congress last year required nationwide standards for driver's licenses, fearing terrorists were using the nation's cornucopia of license styles to skirt security at airports.
Montana already meets those standards, according to Dean Roberts of the motor vehicle division of the Montana Department of Justice.
But there are now two proposals before Congress that go beyond what the state puts on its driver's licenses. They would, for example, mandate states produce licenses resistant to tampering and counterfeiting.
If Montana ignores those standards -- as the bill requires -- then residents here wouldn't be able to use the driver's licenses as a form of ID when boarding commercial airplanes, or use them to pass any sort of federal-required identification.
"To the average citizen, that means you are not going to get on an airplane," Roberts said.
The bill was limited to noncommercial licenses because failure to comply with commercial license requirements would mean losing federal highway funds, he said.
It also makes it illegal to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, which currently isn't prohibited under state law.
Koopman's 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.
Rep. Tim Dowell, D-Kalispell, criticized it as aiding terrorism. He noted that law enforcement officers used gun regulations to link the Washington D.C.-area sniper shootings.
Terrorists "can come to Montana, they can buy one of these weapons, go on a reign of terror, and there would be no way to track them down," he said.
He also questioned the logic of the state exempting itself from federal law.
"That's pretty cool, maybe we should say we aren't subject to the income tax," he said.
Dowell's complaints were dismissed as "crazy emotionalism" by Rep. Ed Butcher, R-Winifred. In the end, 73 lawmakers voted to move the bill forward, and afterward there was scattered applause on the House floor.
A third and final vote is expect today. If both bills pass their third vote, then they will move on to the Senate.
Click here: NWV Exclusive -- Bill in Montana State Legislature to Keep Feds in Line

BILL IN MONTANA STATE LEGISLATURE TO KEEP FEDS IN LINE

February 26, 2005
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
NewsWithViews.com
A new bill has been introduced in the Montanta State Legislature which require the County Sheriff be notified before any federal agents are allowed to enter the state with the intention of carrying out law enforcement actions. The bill provides not only for pre-notification, but the Sheriff must also give consent before federal agents may proceed.
A similar action took place back on April 15, 1997, Big Horn County, Wyoming when Sheriff Dave Mattis issued a new policy regarding federal law enforcement personnel:
Federal law enforcement personnel need to notify Big Horn County Sheriff's Office in advance of any federal law enforcement operation in Big Horn County, Wyoming.
Sheriff's Office requests the following information before the Sheriff determines whether the Sheriff's Office will be involved:
An identification of the individuals or residences to be searched or arrested if known.
An identification of the agencies and personnel to be involved in the overall operation contemplated by the federal law enforcement agency.
An identification of the chain of command for the operation or planned activity.
An identification of the translator if those to be arrested or subject to search are not expected to be fluent in English.
Determine the time of day of proposed arrest or search.
The Sheriff's Office will inquire of federal law enforcement personnel in charge to confirm that the federal law enforcement agency in good faith has probable cause for any potential searches and arrests prior to any such search or arrest of which the Sheriffs Office gains knowledge.
The Sheriff's Office will discourage federal law enforcement arrests or searches after 10:00 P.M. unless exigent circumstances exist.
If assistance is provided, the Big Horn County Sheriff's Office will:
Have direct radio communication capability with the Sheriff's Dispatch during all searches and arrests. Report any observed violation of civil rights to the Sheriff's Dispatch contemporaneously. Keep dispatcher logs. Prepare after action reports within 48 hours. Conduct thorough investigation of any alleged civil rights violations.
This new policy by Sheriff Mattis was a result of a U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J) and announced that all federal officials were forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval stating: "If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody."
This court decision stemmed from a lawsuit against Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the IRS by Sheriff Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association. This lawsuit filed in federal district court in Wyoming was to enforce the protections provided by the U.S. and Wyoming constitutions. The District Court found in favor of the sheriffs and stated in their ruling that "Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." The language here reaffirms that "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." The court was referring to the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/2005/billhtml/HB0284.htm#About..........
 
Chances of it Passing? it allready Passed.

Heres to hoping that Idaho will follow MT's Example.
 
You would think with the tone of that bill they wouldn't have excluded FA from the list of firearms. If they said FA is completely okay, then the state would have a hell of a fight on its hands.

Either way, they can always amend that part when the climate is right.


Thats it, the job hunt begins.

I hear ya. I think that would be a beautiful place to live. Now it paradise.
 
I just reread it and realized it says "flash or sound suppressors". Does this mean if it passes we are going to have someoen in Montana make a suppressor and not register it, sell it to other individuals inside Montana, have the ATF come in and arrest the people, then have the state of Montana fight for its citizens??????????

:what:

This is unreal.

So what is the chance of this passing? And how come the news artcle says it is HB366, but the one posted says HB420?
 
(does happy dance)

Montanans, give your senators a ring!

(wonders how many suppressor manufacturers there are in Montana - and how many more will now spring up there?!?)

Woah - just noticed this:

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

Doesn't this mean that 20mm and 35mm cannons aren't DDs anymore?

Montana did indeed go and pick a fight with the Feds! GO MONTANA!
 
Last edited:
Having lived there for 30 years, I can state that if they gave you a machine gun at the border with a hundred cases of ammo, freezing your 'nads off in 3 feet of snow for 50 days of possibly nice weather in the summer it still can't possibly be worth it...

Been there, lived it, hate it, won't go back.

Oh, I suppose, if you like the great outdoors and trees and stuff, it has a few redeeming virtues. But not enough.

Presumably this law is a tactic to scare off californians from buying the parts of the state they don't already own... :)
 
I can state that if they gave you a machine gun at the border with a hundred cases of ammo, freezing your 'nads off in 3 feet of snow for 50 days of possibly nice weather in the summer it still can't possibly be worth it...

Sounds like my kind of weather :cool:

But I just started proceedings to buy a house here in ID so I'm not moving for a while yet.
 
I never thought I might move from the state I have lived in for 48 years and where everyone I know lives. But I just might. I think Montana would like a Famiy Physician up in that part of this country. Yeeepppp -- Just Might Do IT. I do not like the cold but I dislike gun control even more.
 
Wow. I've been thinking I might like to live there.

Practical effects: This will NOT allow MGs to be made in MT. They excluded them, wisely in my opinion. What this means is that SBRs, AOWs and such things are, according to state law, excluded, so there is a potential for conflict there, with someone owning a made-in-MT AOW for instance. If that ends up being resolved in MT's favor, THEN some state (maybe MT) could start exempting made-in-MT MGs. That would be great. It's better to start on something that's not such a total hot-button as an MG.
 
So - what happens when some short barreled shotgun stamped "Made in Montana" gets used in a crime in California? This will be interesting for sure...
 
So - what happens when some short barreled shotgun stamped "Made in Montana" gets used in a crime in California? This will be interesting for sure

And here comes the trolls....:rolleyes:
 
Zedicus, my question wasn't meant to be trollish, I'm trying to point out the states' rights implications under the commerce clause.

The Fed .gov has said that "If anything can conceivably cross state lines, it's interstate commerce and we can regulate it." Montana's on the verge of saying "If it's made here, owned here, and used here, sod off - and we don't need your federal highway dollars, we have enough roads."

The point is that you have conflicting definitions of what "interstate commerce" means, and therefore conflicting jurisdictions. Obviously, I'm on the side of the Montanans, that the Fed .gov has no business restricting firearms that never leave Montana.
 
Then you have my apology.

Back on what you mentioned, the only realistic way that such a thing would happen is if the anti-gun nutcases in California did it themselves.
 
So - what happens when some short barreled shotgun stamped "Made in Montana" gets used in a crime in California? This will be interesting for sure...
It would / could be prosecuted under both California state and Fed. law. Just the same as if someone in MT owned an NFA-registered SBR and it gets used in a crime in CA.
 
So the news article in the link is from Febuary of 2005! Is this just one of those bills that gets introduced every single year but never makes it?
 
Three important bills from the Montana Shooting Sports Association are coming up for hearings. None of them has passed yet.

HB 420 (Koopman) is due for a hearing before the House Judiciary committee on Friday 2/2, 8am. *This bill declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are simply not subject to any federal regulation under the power of Congress to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." *
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HB0420.htm

Also coming up before the House Judiciary Committee Friday 2/2, 8 am:

HB 340 (Wells). *This is MSSA's flagship Self Defense bill! *This bill addresses a bunch of different voids in Montana law, all to allow you to better use Self Defense. *It includes a clarification that you have no duty to flee or dial 911 before you defend yourself, about what display of a firearm you may not be charged with a crime, under what conditions and for how long police may take custody of a firearm, and much more. *This bill also makes it so a concealed weapon permit is not necessary to carry concealed in Montana, but makes permits available for people who want them for nonresident
travel and Brady buys. *
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HB0340.htm

Today:
SB 309 is Senator Balyeat's bill to prohibit police from
confiscating firearms in Montana during a declared emergency. Hearing before Senate Judiciary Committee, 8am Wednesday 1/31.
 
Wow. Just... wow. Can they do that?

If this passes (and guessing by the Montanans I know, the chances are at least 50/50), I wonder what the Federal government's response will be?

Chalk up one more reason to move to Montana for me (if only land prices weren't so darn high - thank you Californicators)!

EDIT: After a little further reading, I'm not clear: has this been codified into Montana law, or has it simply passed just the House?

Also, I'm happy to note that compared to SD winters, Montana would be a vacation. I'll take 3' of snow any day of the week over 6" of snow and 30+mph - with the same temperature. Besides, I like snow shoes and trees. :) Now to find a job...
 
Idaho . . . Montana . . . Idaho . . . Montana

Sunnuvabeech.

They pass this, I will have to re-assess the software and engineering companies up there.

Ya-hoo!

Ya-just-flippin-hoo!
 
I was reading this and in the back of my mind I was scheming how I could move to Montanna.... then I read this section.... Why did they have to spoil a perfectly good piece of legislation with the following?

NEW SECTION. Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

Guess that include double barrel shotguns as well.

Don't get me wrong... Overall though I think this is great.
 
How does that include shotguns? I know of no automatic shotguns which are automatic, aside from the ones which are exclusive to the military. Other than that, I don't see how it restricts a semi, pump, or double barreled shotgun: even a SxS with two triggers can't fire twice with one pull. That requires two pulls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top