Montana passes house bill excluding firearms from fed government control

Status
Not open for further replies.
All that good verbiage, and then this?

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

I fail to see any benefit, other that Montana making an incremental step in taking back their rights, and perhaps being able to have suppressors without the $200 tax and the registration.

Please school me on what I'm missing here.
 
I absolutely applaud this law. That being said, it will absolutely be overturned in court under Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court's medical marijuana case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

And to emphasize the point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart

Moreover, even if you could imagine the Supreme Court reversing field on this issue, the Federal government would just use its "blackmail power" to deny federal funds to Montana. Been used many times, first by liberals then "conservatives". Ronald Reagan trumpted what he called "The New Federalism", but I knew it was a fraud when he agreed to twist the arms of states (by threatening to cutoff federal funds) to get them to raise the minimum drinking age to 21.

You say, OK, but if we get enough states to do this, it will matter. True--but if you can get enough states to follow suit, we should be able to get enough representation on the Federal level to make such things unnecessary--and I see no sign of that happening (yet). Witness your last election.

So, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Let's take the step, of course, but we should always keep in mind the length of the journey, lest we deceive ourselves into thinking there will be a quick victory--and get discouraged when it doesn't show up immediately.
 
First off, let me say that this is a radical, awesome attempt at reigning in the Federal juggernaut. Whether it works or not remains to be seen.

But I have two questions:

1. Are there any commercial gun manufacturers in Montana?

2. If more than one state adopted a similar law, would it be realistic for gun makers to put small assembly shops in each state?
 
BTW, you really don't want to move here - it's blazing hot in the summertime, freezing cold in the winter, the wind blows all the time, and spring and fall are each about 20 minutes long.


In Montana, hte wind doesn't blow, it sucks:p
 
1. Are there any commercial gun manufacturers in Montana?

Richard Celata at KT Ordnance, Dillon, Montana has been battling the BATFEces over his 80% frames.

http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/


Firearms manufactures as listed at the Montana Shooting Sports Association website http://www.mtssa.org/mt.phtml

Cooper Firearms of Montana
Stevensville
MT
Phone (406) 777-0373 Fax (406) 777-5228

David Gentry
314 N Hoffman
Belgrade
MT
59714
(406) 388-GUNS
Quiet Muzzle Brake, Custom Rifles, Feather-Light rings and bases

KT Ordnance
Richard Celata
382 Adams Lane
Dillon
MT
(406) 834-3611
Your 80% DIY arms, no FFI required Make your own legally

Lilja Precision Rifle Barrels
Daniel Lilja
PO Box 372
Plains
MT
59859
Phone (406) 826-3084 Fax (406) 826-3083

Montana Rifleman
3172 Montana Hwy 35
Kalispell
MT
59901

Serengeti Rifles
2860 Farm To Market Road
Kalispell
MT
59904
406/756-2399
Hand made, wood stocked, custom rifles and riflestocks
 
Flipping open my history book from 2057......

"And this new law in Montana is what many consider to be the first act in the Second US Civil War, also referred to by the victors as 'The War of Eastern Aggression'."

I said earlier in this thread that acts like these are the seeds of a proto-secessionist movement that will flower mightily if the Dems take full power in '08. Many Americans will feel they have no choice but creating a moat around themselves, a bulwark against a hostile Federal gov't.
 
All that good verbiage, and then this?

Quote:
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
I fail to see any benefit, other that Montana making an incremental step in taking back their rights, and perhaps being able to have suppressors without the $200 tax and the registration.

Please school me on what I'm missing here.

Silencer, Short barreled rifles/shotguns, AOW's, DD's,

I suspect they left machine guns out for a reason, so that it will fly under the radar a little better.

The challenge to federal authority is the big thing, not what the item is. They need to challenge the fed's, allow the law to go to the supreme court. The important thing is what the Supreme Court will rule.

If they rule in favor for Montana and .gov ignores the SCOTUS, they have effectively snubbed their nose at the SCOTUS and it could have grave consequences of unchecked federal authority if no one does anything to .gov for ignoring the SCOTUS

If they rule in favor for .gov and Montana ignores the SCOTUS, you've effectively said "Your laws do not apply to me, I am a sovereign nation". A revolution has begun. How far it goes, no one will know. Will .gov force Montana to comply through tax dollars or through strong armed force? Will Montana buckle under .gov or continue to ignore them

Machine guns are nothing in the grand scheme of thing.
 
Here is an article from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. The original post was a bit confusing in that it included information from the 2005 session. Also, a link to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle date 2007 has bill numbers from 2005 for some reason. The bills passed the House at that time but were killed in the Senate Judiciary committee. Hearings on this year's bills are coming up on Friday in the House Judiciary committee.

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2007/02/01/breakingnews/40guns.txt

Lawmaker wants people to keep guns during emergencies

By WALT WILLIAMS Chronicle Staff Writer

HELENA -- Come earthquake or wildfire, a local lawmaker wants to ensure that people can still grab their guns.

Sen. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman, is proposing legislation that would prevent governmental authorities from confiscating firearms during times of crisis, except during normal police actions when there is cause to believe a crime is being committed with a gun.

The senator pointed to Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, where law enforcement agents brought in from outside the city confiscated guns as looters and other hoodlums had the run of the streets.

"Many Montanans are very concerned this sort of confiscation doesn't happen here," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday.

Senate Bill 309 would prevent government agents from confiscating firearms during a disaster or when a state of emergency has been declared. It also would restrict the use of nonresident peace officers who are sometimes called in to assist in an emergency.

Disasters are when people most need firearms for protection, with law enforcement busy and thinly spread assisting victims, Garett Bacon of East Helena said.

"(SB 309) doesn't hold us above the law," he said. "All it does is protect us from the chaos that would reign."

The bill is endorsed by the National Rifle Association and the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

MSSA president Gary Marbut said in the aftermath of Katrina, the best protected neighborhoods in New Orleans were those that had formed armed neighborhood watches.

"We hope it will not be necessary for us to have a law like this in Montana," he said, but it was good "proactive" policy.

Wildfires would be the most common natural disasters during which SB 309 would kick in.

Southwest Montana, particularly Gallatin County, is also at risk of earthquakes, with one study by the county Geographic Information Systems office showing that a moderately strong earthquake along one of the faults

in the region could do extensive structural damage throughout Bozeman and the surrounding communities.

There were no opponents of the bill.
 
Currently, the bill is in the Judiciary committee.

The sponsor's name is Roger Koopman, and here is his contact information:

Home Address
811 S TRACY AVE
BOZEMAN, MT 59715-5325
Home: (406)587-7555
[email protected]

The gov's contact info:

Governor Brian A. Schweitzer
Office of the Governor
Montana State Capitol Bldg.
P.O. Box 200801
Helena MT 59620-0801
(406) 444-3111, FAX (406) 444-5529

Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger
Office of the Lt. Governor
Montana State Capitol Bldg.
PO Box 200801
Helena, MT 59620-1901
(406) 444-3111, FAX (406) 444-4648

Please post if you called or wrote!
 
LibertyTeeth -

That article mentions nothing of HB 420 which is the one that exempts firearms made in Montana from federal control.

From what I can find that bill is still in the Montana house.

Yes, there are 3 separate pro-gun bills, perhaps we should have a thread for each one to minimize confusion.

HB 420 will be heard tomorrow, along with HB 340 dealing with self defense issues. I plan on being there to testify.
 
LibertyTeeth -

That article mentions nothing of HB 420 which is the one that exempts firearms made in Montana from federal control.

From what I can find that bill is still in the Montana house.

http://laws.leg.mt.gov/pls/laws07/LA...P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=

That link shows the status as it will be heard today in the house Judiciary committee.

That is because the article in the link is 2 years old. The bill has been introduced before, but didn't pass. It will be interesting if anything has changed since then so that it would pass this time. I am not going to hold my breath, but I will pray.
 
@rangermonroe
firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

Well, if it does, someone will challenge that section, to have it removed after the original bill passes.

Oh, that is evil!

"I move that this section be stricken, as it would apply to shotguns. Everyone has a shotgun, therefore, we should protect shotguns as well."

"Seconded."

(law passes)

"Wait a sec! We just legalized machine guns?!?"

"Yep."

"Eh, good enough then."
 
Last edited:
Good for Montana! Bad for her citizens...

Why? Because this will end up just like weed in California, and other state and local laws in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, etc. Folks will revel in their God-given freedom for a moment, and shortly thereafter will watch as their brothers and sisters are prosecuted for breaking federal firearm laws by the folks in D.C. who are really running Montana. It will happen.

I know who's side I'm on, and I know who is going to win. It won't be freedom....
 
Google Wickard and the more recent Cali medical marijuana case (the name of which eludes me)(Edit: it is Raich). I'm completely in agreement that the interstate commerce clause should apply only to actual goods actually exchanged in actual commerce that actually crosses state lines (what a truly radical idea :rolleyes: ), but I can assure you that if this passes into state law, Wickard will be the basis for the federal response.

I'm encouraged that more and more states are telling fed.gov to go get bent in various, little ways. If we could get a decent, sane ruling on the commerce clause from SCOTUS, we might end up with two generations of federal powermongering placed in peril with one clack of the gavel.

I would be munching popcorn if that were to happen. Better than TV.

Mike
 
Google Wickard and the more recent Cali medical marijuana case (the name of which eludes me). I'm completely in agreement that the interstate commerce clause should apply only to actual goods actually exchanged in actual commerce that actually crosses state lines (what a truly radical idea ), but I can assure you that if this passes into state law, Wickard will be the basis for the federal response.

Maybe so, but the state can just say, "fine, but we aint' gonna enforce it. By the way, you have violated our agreement when we took statehood. Due to that our contract becomes null and void. Here is 50 million dollars to clear up any debts we might own you, send us a bill if you need more. Hasta la vista."

(10 seconds later a certain someone renounces his citizenship and moves to Montana)

Also, those cases didn't have a state standing behind them. They say money can buy you anything. OJ knows that. I think a state could afford the lawyers needed to win a SCOTUS case.
 
Oh, that is evil!

"I move that this section be stricken, as it would apply to shotguns. Everyone has a shotgun, therefore, we should protect shotguns as well."

"Seconded."

(law passes)

"Wait a sec! We just legalized machineguns?

That is how it could happen. :evil:
 
Quote:
Flipping open my history book from 2057......

"And this new law in Montana is what many consider to be the first act in the Second US Civil War, also referred to by the victors as 'The War of Eastern Aggression'."
I said earlier in this thread that acts like these are the seeds of a proto-secessionist movement that will flower mightily if the Dems take full power in '08. Many Americans will feel they have no choice but creating a moat around themselves, a bulwark against a hostile Federal gov't.

long overdue
 
Maybe so, but the state can just say, "fine, but we aint' gonna enforce it.
Yeah, but the ATF is not a state agency, and they will enforce it.
By the way, you have violated our agreement when we took statehood. Due to that our contract becomes null and void. Here is 50 million dollars to clear up any debts we might own you, send us a bill if you need more. Hasta la vista."
Any other pipe dreams, while we're on the topic? ;)
Also, those cases didn't have a state standing behind them. They say money can buy you anything. OJ knows that. I think a state could afford the lawyers needed to win a SCOTUS case.
Don't get me wrong, I heartily encourage states to tell Uncle Sugar to take a hike. And I think that the court case will be entertaining if it happens, I'm just not as unbridledly optimistic about the probability of that happening, or about the chances for success.

I think we'd be better off getting Wickard curbed first, then going for the throat. The problem with doing it this way is that the Supremes can just refuse to grant cert, citing existing caselaw.

Mike
 
Moreover, even if you could imagine the Supreme Court reversing field on this issue, the Federal government would just use its "blackmail power" to deny federal funds to Montana.

Well, if I were a Montanan, I'd be OK with that. If the Federal government refuses to disburse any Federal monies to Montana, well then, Montanans don't have much call to pay any more Federal taxes.

I could easily see a New Secession start that way.
 
Well, if I were a Montanan, I'd be OK with that. If the Federal government refuses to disburse any Federal monies to Montana, well then, Montanans don't have much call to pay any more Federal taxes.

I could easily see a New Secession start that way.

Yep And you can expect Idaho, Wyoming & possibly part of Utah to side with MT if that happened.

But seeing what like our Fed-gov is, they would likely turn that into US Civil War II.:banghead: :barf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top