Flyboy
Member
We all read with delight about Montana's HB 366, which would have exempted firearms produced and kept in Montana from Federal regulation. Obviously, with the Raich decision, that idea is dead (even if it hadn't died in committee). The fact that such a bill was even proferred, however, is heartening: it shows that at least one state is getting fed up with the Feds.
My question, then, is this: historically, major political change is usually the result of The Powers That Be raising the temperature of the pot too high; at some point, the people get fed up, the dam breaks, and changes are made. Given that Montana was considering such legislation before the Raich decision was published, might that decision help to catalyze support for the kinds of changes proposed by HB 366?
My question, then, is this: historically, major political change is usually the result of The Powers That Be raising the temperature of the pot too high; at some point, the people get fed up, the dam breaks, and changes are made. Given that Montana was considering such legislation before the Raich decision was published, might that decision help to catalyze support for the kinds of changes proposed by HB 366?