JLelli
Member
Last I checked, there is no constitutional guarantee for the right to smoke cannabis. Firearms have the Second Amendment, which trumps the supremacy clause.
Montana passes house bill excluding firearms from fed government control
- Thread starter fiend
- Start date
- Status
Last I checked, there is no constitutional guarantee for the right to smoke cannabis. Firearms have the Second Amendment, which trumps the supremacy clause.
thrasher64
Member
Damn, I was considering moving to New Hampshire (Free state project) but if this passes I might have to check into Montana 
coltrane679
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 377
"Last I checked, there is no constitutional guarantee for the right to smoke cannabis. Firearms have the Second Amendment, which trumps the supremacy clause."
The Second Amendment (if ever construed by the Supremes--they haven't touched a 2A case in almost 70 years) limits WHAT can be regulated about guns. The Commerce Clause deals with WHO can regulate.
You are mixing apples and oranges, my friend.
I point you, again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart
The Second Amendment (if ever construed by the Supremes--they haven't touched a 2A case in almost 70 years) limits WHAT can be regulated about guns. The Commerce Clause deals with WHO can regulate.
You are mixing apples and oranges, my friend.
I point you, again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart
So what happened when the 9th district revisted Stewart? Did they stick to their initial decision?
The 2nd says RKBA cannot be infringed. That overules (or should
) the ability for congress to encroach on that right via legislation - even under the commerce clause.
Looks like the 9th circuit's decision didn't involve the 2nd, just the question of whether personally built and owned machine guns affect commerce.
The 2nd says RKBA cannot be infringed. That overules (or should
) the ability for congress to encroach on that right via legislation - even under the commerce clause.Looks like the 9th circuit's decision didn't involve the 2nd, just the question of whether personally built and owned machine guns affect commerce.
Thin Black Line
Member
Yep. Nothing in this law will keep federal agents from traveling around the
state, picking up people at ranges with their new silencers, and taking them
out of state for their federal prosecution.
I suppose we'll see if Montana follows down this road in relation to the
fedgov if this law is passed:
You get the idea....
I almost hope that does happen, because if any state will stand and spit in the governments' face, saying, "fine, we don't need your money" it would be Montana. I imagine the state has a much higher percentage of contributors to the tax base than it does takers than the national average, and it's not like the state of Montana would lose out much if it were to lose public school funding or road money.
Ok, I'm probably just dreaming. Still, I'd give it at least 25% chance of happening if it passes with broad popularity.
Yeah, but...
Quote:
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.
I thought that there was also a law in Montana that required the local sherriff to be notified before federal law enforcement entered his jusridiction or engaged in enforcement action in his jurisdiction.
Am i confused?
If not, then the feds would have to wait either for local sherriff permission, or for their intended target to leave the borders of Montana, in order to act against him legally.
Not that the detail sof what is legal or not can return a bullet fired from a federal LEO's gun to its barrel- leaving the victim, guilty or not, just as dead. But at least there is some hope for legal repercussions.
Unless i am wrong about the whole idea, that is.
C-
Quote:
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.
I thought that there was also a law in Montana that required the local sherriff to be notified before federal law enforcement entered his jusridiction or engaged in enforcement action in his jurisdiction.
Am i confused?
If not, then the feds would have to wait either for local sherriff permission, or for their intended target to leave the borders of Montana, in order to act against him legally.
Not that the detail sof what is legal or not can return a bullet fired from a federal LEO's gun to its barrel- leaving the victim, guilty or not, just as dead. But at least there is some hope for legal repercussions.
Unless i am wrong about the whole idea, that is.
C-
And I imagine a sizeable portion of the population of states like ND, SD, and NE. Aside from the urban centers, there are a lot of 'raving gun nuts' and freedom lovers in those states.
It really wouldn't take much to start a civil war, of sorts. Federal agents go to arrest a group of people for NFA violations, and Montana citizens - police, unorganized militia, whatever - get really PO'd and stop them before they leave the state. Or, a Federal agent or two (and maybe a silencer owner) gets shot during a secret arrest, and the local populace gets angry. Lots of things.
Bob R
Member
And, don't forget replacing your windshield every couple of years. In the winter they throw 3/8" gravel on the roads. Insurance companies up here no longer cover the chip repairs like other states. Then you have to plan on being without your car for a few weeks (or maybe forever) every few years after you hit a deer, pray you don't hit a horse, cow, moose or bear. If you have trouble driving a few hours for basics, this is not the place. I am going shopping today, I drive 150 miles one way to do so.
Wind, not much of a problem, it has been blowing pretty steady since October. The last blow we had through here registered 91 mph on the wind gauge. Of course that was just a gust, the average during that 3-4 days was around 40mph. Other than that, 15-25 mph is a normal day.
Oh, please bring a job with you. You won't find an overabundance of good paying jobs here. Where I am is really special, the unemployment rate runs about 8%. The income per capita is $9,556, which includes all adults and children. The median household income is $25,481.
So, even if you can come up here and build all the toys you want, is it really worth it? Especially when the toys will always have to remain in Montana.
There is not always a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, sometimes it ends over the septic tank.
bob
rangermonroe
Member
I do not think that I would want to volunteer for that detail. Me thinks it might be, not so much fun.
That would kinda like being at the range here with an "I Love NY" button, arresting someone for trial in Bloomburg town.
Thin Black Line
Member
and
The detail would suck but it probably wouldn't wind up as a civil war. There
are plenty of places throughout Russia and states of the FSU where the
authorities maintain very little control. Moscow still sends in their interior
enforcers, there are gun battles, people get killed, and the infrastructure
(what there is of it) is third world. In the US enforcement would all depend
on the "big picture." If DC feared a Montana split would open the flood-gates,
then they would intervene. If a Montana split went largely unnoticed in the
rest of the US, probably very little would be done. Which do you think is
more likely?
BTW, speaking on US city-states-unto-themselves:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070110/pl_nm/california_schwarzenegger_dc
You have to remember as long as the local king collects taxes from his
resident serfs, and pays them in fealty to the Emperor, then the local
king actually has a wide amount of leeway in his local rule.
One should consider the history of Judea in the Roman Empire. When they
paid taxes and did not resist the legions, things went fine --often prospered
for the common person under Herod (BTW, not a nice guy). When the common
person joined a revolt, taxes were no longer sent to Rome and some group
took control of Jerusalem and declared independence, things didn't go so well.
With history as a guide as long as the citizens of Montana pay taxes, the
governor pays appropriate lip service (called homage in ye olde days) to DC,
and some armed group doesn't take control of Helena and make a declaration
on CNN, this bill if/when becomes law may have little impact.
Thin Black Line
Member
I heard some of the tribes in Canada have pretty much gone autonomous,
posted armed guards at the roads going in and told the Canadian federal
gov't: "We're on our own, we don't need you, so don't bother sending
anyone out here anymore."
Did this really happen? If it did, did anyone notice?
How about all the guys out west into polygamy? As long as they weren't
committing felonies involving money and paying taxes, the feds have
left them alone....well, except for the guy who went on national TV and
talked about his "lifestyle" in a brazen manner.
JLelli said:
No, unfortunately it does not. Over the years the Supreme Court has essentially balanced the Bill of Rights against Congressional power and it almost always sides with Congressional authority.
You are also incorrect in your assumption. In fact, in Justice Steven's majority opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich, he cited Wickard v. Fillburn. Wickard v. Filburn is pretty much the case that has turned the ICC into the "let Congress do whatever the **** it wants clause."
I am not saying I agree, I'm just saying that you have to understand precedent and the lack of logic associated with it.
During the last period when the People's Democratic Party was in control, either Montana or another of the north western states introduced legislation to refuse to participate in any intercourse with the federal government that was not enumerated in the Constitution. That would cover most of the things the federal government does now. I believe it got through one of the houses but didn't become law because the Democrats were by then in chaos over being caught raiding the House Bank and Post office.
Laws like this are good because they remind the PDP that there can be such a thing as the Disunited States of America.
Laws like this are good because they remind the PDP that there can be such a thing as the Disunited States of America.
ramis
Member
ramis
Member
Another update
I'm I the only one following this?
http://www.montana-alliance-for-liberty.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1309
ramis
I'm I the only one following this?
http://www.montana-alliance-for-liberty.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1309
ramis
vis-à-vis
Member
No but keep posting the updates anyways.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Does anyone else find it disconcerting that the so-called "Citizens Crime Commission" is so woefully stupid?
Reporters, after all, don't have the ability to enforce their stupidity at gunpoint.
Thin Black Line
Member
It looks like the tri-states philosophy has survived Johnstone.
thrasher64
Member
Sounds promising so far..
Stauble
Member
second civil war?
hell im still fightin the first
TCB in TN
Member
Love TN, and with all of my family and stuff here I thought I would never leave, but WOW! Sounds like those folks are takin their freedom serious! May have to have a talk with the wife and kids about going that way.
Aguila Blanca
Member
My wife refuses to consider moving to Montana.
Looks more and more like I'm going to miss her ...
Looks more and more like I'm going to miss her ...
- Status
