Montana passes house bill excluding firearms from fed government control
- Thread starter fiend
- Start date
- Status
Hey, I'm just as anti-NFA as the next guy, but you guys know this means about as much as the Cali House declaring Pot legal (and that state flower) and San Franny declaring the military unconstitutional, don't you?
This is little more than a sense of the Montana house resolution that means absolutely nothing? Why? Because interstate nexus is easy to find even if the weapon doesn't leave the state. An order was made over a phone lines, over the internet, or through the mail. Or parts that are shipped from another state. Heck there's still good law that says anything that AFFECTS interstate commerce is within the jurisdiction of the federal goverment, even a farmer that makes his own food because he affects interstate commerce by not buying food.
Now don't jump on me, because I think it's stupid, but it is the law.
In other words, stop licking your lips because this means nothing. And Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer are still coming after your guns.
This is little more than a sense of the Montana house resolution that means absolutely nothing? Why? Because interstate nexus is easy to find even if the weapon doesn't leave the state. An order was made over a phone lines, over the internet, or through the mail. Or parts that are shipped from another state. Heck there's still good law that says anything that AFFECTS interstate commerce is within the jurisdiction of the federal goverment, even a farmer that makes his own food because he affects interstate commerce by not buying food.
Now don't jump on me, because I think it's stupid, but it is the law.
In other words, stop licking your lips because this means nothing. And Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer are still coming after your guns.
NickEllis
Member
Beg to differ, Nemoaz,
Firearms ARE constitutionally protected, and what is moreso, were explicitly recognized under the contract of the 1889 constitution; it is upon THAT basis that Montana is announcing its new law, explicitly:
Quote:
"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."
Pot certainly does not fit this description; this bill brings into play a whole new series of events, including the 2nd, 9th, and 19th amendments, explicitly described in the bill itself.
I am excited about this bill, and if other states stand up to muster we might see some change with changes like this.
Nick
Firearms ARE constitutionally protected, and what is moreso, were explicitly recognized under the contract of the 1889 constitution; it is upon THAT basis that Montana is announcing its new law, explicitly:
Quote:
"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."
Pot certainly does not fit this description; this bill brings into play a whole new series of events, including the 2nd, 9th, and 19th amendments, explicitly described in the bill itself.
I am excited about this bill, and if other states stand up to muster we might see some change with changes like this.
Nick
gyp_c2
Member
hmmm...
...I disagree...
It means that someone is saying what they really think, instead of the PC, watered-down, drivel that we've all put up with for so long...
It means that the first stick has been put to the sand-pile...and that line isn't far behind...
If our rights have been slowly siphoned away, and the kettle heat has been slowly turned up just below a boil, and somethin's startin' to burn yer' nose-hairs, that someone else has noticed and is looking for a way to put out the fire...
It's a baby-step, but it is a step in the right direction...
...I like it...
...I disagree...
It means that someone is saying what they really think, instead of the PC, watered-down, drivel that we've all put up with for so long...
It means that the first stick has been put to the sand-pile...and that line isn't far behind...
If our rights have been slowly siphoned away, and the kettle heat has been slowly turned up just below a boil, and somethin's startin' to burn yer' nose-hairs, that someone else has noticed and is looking for a way to put out the fire...
It's a baby-step, but it is a step in the right direction...
...I like it...
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
None of us believe that the anti-gunners are just gonna say, "Oh, well Montana (and whatever other states decide to show the same resistance to fed control) said they aren't gonna go along with federal law so we'll just pack up and go home."
We all know that this isn't a panacea. But, look at Cali. L.A. allows illegal immigrants, in fact welcomes them and is a "sanctuary city" and the feds do nothing. In SF, you can poke smot all day long, and you'll never see a day of jail time as long as you don't deal the stuff. And the DEA doesn't breath down the necks of old hippie types there.
Montana figures that people in the state who decide to own a homemage cannon, or a silencer won't be attacked by the fedgov as long as they shoot on their land only, and don't make a big stink about what they are doing.
Is it ideal?
No.
But neither is the Cali situation ideal. (I would argue that while the state has no right to allow the illegals in, it's a Constitutional violation, whole part about invasion, they can do whatever they want about pot because the Constitution mentions it in no way, therefore it is a state/local government issue). Thing is this. How many states will follow Montana's lead. If a whole region in the country decides to do this, the fedgov might just be in a real rock and a hard place. Besides the left coast, no where else has the state government reversed pot laws on the federal level.
If say, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada all hopped on board with this stuff, the fedgov would find itself in a major pickle.
(This is part of why I really hate the Amendment that stopped state legislature voting of Senators, if the states had been electing people who believe what Montana's legislature believes, things would be much better in this country).
We all know that this isn't a panacea. But, look at Cali. L.A. allows illegal immigrants, in fact welcomes them and is a "sanctuary city" and the feds do nothing. In SF, you can poke smot all day long, and you'll never see a day of jail time as long as you don't deal the stuff. And the DEA doesn't breath down the necks of old hippie types there.
Montana figures that people in the state who decide to own a homemage cannon, or a silencer won't be attacked by the fedgov as long as they shoot on their land only, and don't make a big stink about what they are doing.
Is it ideal?
No.
But neither is the Cali situation ideal. (I would argue that while the state has no right to allow the illegals in, it's a Constitutional violation, whole part about invasion, they can do whatever they want about pot because the Constitution mentions it in no way, therefore it is a state/local government issue). Thing is this. How many states will follow Montana's lead. If a whole region in the country decides to do this, the fedgov might just be in a real rock and a hard place. Besides the left coast, no where else has the state government reversed pot laws on the federal level.
If say, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada all hopped on board with this stuff, the fedgov would find itself in a major pickle.
(This is part of why I really hate the Amendment that stopped state legislature voting of Senators, if the states had been electing people who believe what Montana's legislature believes, things would be much better in this country).
Last edited:
The fact that you and I believe this so, doesn't change the fact that the federal courts don't. Until that changes, this is just pissing on your shoe. Montana officers may not enforce it, meaning it may not be ILLEGAL under state law. But the state has no authority to make any thing ILLEGAL under federal law legal.
MudPuppy
Member
It doesn't matter, its a main stream acceptance and support of our right to keep and bear. It's not the A bomb at the end of the war, but its a victory back on the road to Freedom.
And not to get too far off topic, but in line with with rights of the states the statements "Last I checked, there is no constitutional guarantee for the right to smoke cannabis." and "But the state has no authority to make any thing ILLEGAL under federal law legal." are wrong. The Federal Government most certainly does NOT have the right to regulate cannabis.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Now, they did it right with alcohol. The feds knew they didn't have the legal authority to regulate booze, so passed an amendment. We all know history and that it got repealed. Difference between that and the "Drug War" of the last 40 years? Ya' I don't know.
(Now, I'm very anti-drug, but something much, much worse than rampant drug use is a Soviet style, constitution ignoring, nanny/police state.)
And not to get too far off topic, but in line with with rights of the states the statements "Last I checked, there is no constitutional guarantee for the right to smoke cannabis." and "But the state has no authority to make any thing ILLEGAL under federal law legal." are wrong. The Federal Government most certainly does NOT have the right to regulate cannabis.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Now, they did it right with alcohol. The feds knew they didn't have the legal authority to regulate booze, so passed an amendment. We all know history and that it got repealed. Difference between that and the "Drug War" of the last 40 years? Ya' I don't know.
(Now, I'm very anti-drug, but something much, much worse than rampant drug use is a Soviet style, constitution ignoring, nanny/police state.)
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
- Status
