Quantcast

MT Freedom Firearms Act - Nullification of Federal Regs?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by TheIrishJedi, May 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheIrishJedi

    TheIrishJedi Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Read this particular blog in detail here.

    Legislative action on HB 246

    Text of the bill:

    So now that HB 246 is law, what do you guys think?
     
  2. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    17,407
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    I think we're in for a heck of a 10th Amendment challenge in SCOTUS, and SCOTUS will rule against Montana for daring to defy the Feds...but I wish them all the best, and I love the idea! If a number of states were to have similar laws in place before Montanas' makes it to SCOTUS, they might have a better chance of it!
     
  3. rl2669

    rl2669 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    140
    Although they probably meant to exclude fully automatic firearms, as written it appears to exclude shotguns. It will be interesting to see what happens as Oct 1 rolls around.
     
  4. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I've been thinking on this a bit and I've come up with a thought or two: I think it is possible that the Federal government might look upon this movement in the states as a reason not to scrub any of its gun laws. While the Federal government might choose to put up a "small battle" to retain its control over the several states, it might do so only as a feint to make it look like it tried as a placation to the anti-gun-rights crowd. It might also consider "losing" such a battle as a means to placate any movement to eradicate all the standing federal anti-gun-rights laws.

    Such a move or position taken by the Federal government would give one of its apparent favorite agencies lots of "work" (justification for that agencies existence) making sure all the arms made and intended to be kept within each of the several states STAY within those states.

    It all depends upon where our illustrious leaders wish to take their stand. Do they wish to take the final steps toward total federal domination over the states or back off and submit to the rightful sovereignty of the several individual states. I prefer the latter myself.

    My only problem is failing in the big quest to unfetter our rights by settling for a placation wherein I am only truly free within my home state.

    Ponder this we must.

    Woody

    "I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2009
  5. rl2669

    rl2669 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    140
    Do not underestimate the interstate commerce clause. IIRC, it was a supreme court case regarding gun-free zones around schools that marked one of the first times that this clause was held NOT to apply to whatever congress wishes it to.

    My gut says that the same SCOTUS that gave us Heller would slap down Montana and any other state that tries to do this...
     
  6. Carbon Helix

    Carbon Helix Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    rl2669 wrote:

    At first I was a little disappointed by them not including automatic firearms in the bill. (I figured if the state did not want automatics, the should still keep the feds from regulating them, then pass their own law against them.) However, I think it makes since this way. They want to fight the court case without any stigma of machine guns hanging over them.

    As to your comment about the law excluding shotguns, you are absolutely right. Hopefully this gets correct. Heck, if it is after the court case has been settled (assuming a Montana victory) they could go back and completely remove that provision....wouldn't that stir up a kettle of fish.
     
  7. heviarti

    heviarti Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    283
    well, it does give a bright future to 20mm rifles. It's a shame they excluded automatics, as we've effectively legislated ourselves out of an inventive and synergistic military arms and design industry. Regulation discourages invention and innovation. The law already thumbs it's nose at most of the NFA... I don't see why they don't just go for the whole package. What are the feds going to do? Occupy Montana? that would create a volatile situation and a spark.
     
  8. engravertom

    engravertom Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Western NY
    If so, I hope that Montana and any other states would have the courage of their convictions. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not what the court says about it. The court cannot overturn the Constitution, unless we let them.

    I can't give the reference off the top of my head, but any unconstitutional law is null and void. I would hold that to be true for any unconstitutional court decision. Ultimately, We The People must read and obey the constitution for ourselves. And enforce it ourselves. That is at the core of what the second amendment is about.

    Tom
     
  9. cbrgator

    cbrgator Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    I saw a guy on Glenn Beck that said it is unlikely to hold up and that it has holes in the text. He said the bills in TX and Utah I think? were being modeled after the MT one but closed the holes and had a better chance of being upheld.
     
  10. NotSoFast

    NotSoFast Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    419
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    While not identical, this is similar.

    In California, the state legalized marijuana for medical uses, by prescription. After a while the feds came in and shut down several shops in San Francisco because it was against federal law, pressing federal charges against the shop owners.

    It could happen to the sellers of Montana manufactured weapons sold in Montana. In fact, I'd be surprized if they didn't do it at some point. You see, the feds, especially the bureaucrats, don't give a flip about upholding the Constitution.
     
  11. TheIrishJedi

    TheIrishJedi Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Louisville, Kentucky
    And the California Police often assist in such situations. I always wonder why, instead of holding back the crowd, they don't shoot or arrest these federal kidnappers and protect their citizens. It would probably be the same way in Montana.
     
  12. engravertom

    engravertom Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Western NY
    This has caused me to rethink my views on legalizing drugs. I'm just about in a libertarian place now. Not easy for a "religious" conservative, but right is right.


    We need some "lesser magistrates" to step up, Govenors, sheriffs, etc. It would take great courage, and serious popular support.

    Perhaps they have turned up the heat too quickly, and the frog is waking up at last.

    Tom
     
  13. highorder

    highorder Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,350
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    But if you recall, about six weeks ago AG Holder stated that the DEA would no longer be doing this.

    He said that the DEA will only go after clinics, people, etc. that are violating State and Federal law.

    In essence, he claimed the DEA would be backing off marajuana...

    I'd imagine that NOT taking the same attitude toward a similar situation would make the .gov a bit hypocritical?...

    (yeah, I know.) :rolleyes:
     
  14. Carbon Helix

    Carbon Helix Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    Also in the California decision (not to justify it by any means) the court said that pot grown legally in California could in no significant way be differentiated from pot grown else where. This was their claim to justify using the interstate commerce clause.

    The Montana law (and the others similar) acknowledge this part of the decision by requiring the clear marking 'Made in Montana' to be stamped on the firearms. Whether this is enough to get it through is a different story entirely.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice