New Montana law denies federal authority to regulate in-state firearms

imported post

Havn't fully researched this yet, came to me in an email and looks legit after a cursory checkout. Anyone else heard about this? Thoughts?

http://www.panamalaw.org/montana_governor_signs_new_gun_law.html

Basically the law rejects federal regulation of firearms, accessories, & ammo produced in Montana for use in Montana, under the assertion that the Constitution says the fed can only regulate interstate trade & can't dictate what can & cannot be sold in a state.

imported post

Yes it's legit, and it sounds great. BUT there is a problem in that past Supreme Court decisions state that anything that could possibly effect interstate commerce, even if stays within a state, is also covered by the commerce clause. IOW - all they have to do is say that an ammo mfg. that does sell ammo in multiple states would have a change in sales if a company in Montanna started mfg. ammo there and selling there, then that is covered by the commerce clause. Montanna is grand standing on something that they have limited chance of winning anything.

-adamsesq

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

Havn't fully researched this yet, came to me in an email and looks legit after a cursory checkout.  Anyone else heard about this?  Thoughts?

http://www.panamalaw.org/montana_governor_signs_new_gun_law.html

Basically the law rejects federal regulation of firearms, accessories, & ammo produced in Montana for use in Montana, under the assertion that the Constitution says the fed can only regulate interstate trade & can't dictate what can & cannot be sold in a state.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge they are the only state that has a firearms portion in their 10th amendment bill. There is 36? state that have had similar bills introduced. They are also the only one to sign their bill into law as far as I know.

imported post

While I salute the effort, don't forget that 18 states have some form of legalized marijuana, either for medicinal use or decriminalized personal use.

You can see just how much that slows down the feds from enforcing their own laws.

imported post

Interesting. I see from that other thread that Utah is considering a similar bill & Texas, one that restates it's state's sovereignty. Could all be nothing but smoke I realize. But I heard one quote from the Youtube vids that if the ends up in the Supreme Court and they reinterpret this back to the way the founders intended, 90% of the progessive agenda from the last 80 years "will be history.":what:

imported post

Hell yeah about time some state started to take back the 10th



:celebrate

imported post

While I commend the Montana lawmakers on their fine efforts in behalf of their citizens I'm afraid that as long as the Federal gov. has control of the Army and Air Guards in the respective states any legislation along these lines will simply be ignored by the Feds as they have the means to enforce their laws and the states have no way in which to defend themselves.

imported post

virgil47 wrote:

While I commend the Montana lawmakers on their fine efforts in behalf of their citizens I'm afraid that as long as the Federal gov. has control of the Army and Air Guards in the respective states any legislation along these lines will simply be ignored by the Feds as they have the means to enforce their laws and the states have no way in which to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that begs the question, how much control does the current administration really have over the armed forces, particularly if ordered to disarm and/or attack American citizens?

Plus, the state have the national guard & unorganized militia with which to defend themselves if it did come to a confrontation of that level.

This is kinda how wars get started...

imported post

Another underlying issue is the definition of what constitutes a weapon manufactured totally in Montana. Will that include all the alloys/steel that form the barrel/frame/receiver/slide, etc? Unless there is a local source of ordnance steel and the hi-tensile alloys that are used in the manufacture of firearms there might be an issue (at least the Fed's may make it one).

imported post

amlevin wrote:

Another underlying issue is the definition of what constitutes a weapon manufactured totally in Montana. Will that include all the alloys/steel that form the barrel/frame/receiver/slide, etc? Unless there is a local source of ordnance steel and the hi-tensile alloys that are used in the manufacture of firearms there might be an issue (at least the Fed's may make it one).

Click to expand...

IIRC the actual law says it just has to be permanently stamped "Made in Montana" to qualify.

imported post

virgil47 wrote:

While I commend the Montana lawmakers on their fine efforts in behalf of their citizens I'm afraid that as long as the Federal gov. has control of the Army and Air Guards in the respective states any legislation along these lines will simply be ignored by the Feds as they have the means to enforce their laws and the states have no way in which to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

:what:Listen to what you're saying...While the federal government has too much power and can impose its will on the states, state's rights are null and void...
Anyone else see a problem with this?
Besides, as with the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments all can be backed up by the 2nd. It ain't about duck hunting!!!
The Chinese have 1 billion people, even if they could field 100,000,000 of those as combat troops, which is impossible, they would be up against 80,000,000 US gun owners with 250,000,000 guns. Each citizen would only have to take out 1.25 on average. Yes some won't or can't fight, but there are those who can take out a lot more than 1.25 per. Of course, this is exponentially easier with home field advantage and the element of surprise than in the sandbox.
Now apply that logic to the 1.2 million member US army (counting the National Guard and reserve) and run the numbers. The Founding Fathers put some thought into this one... What the states are doing isn't about start an insurrection, it's about drawing a line in the sand to avert one.

imported post

BUT there is a problem in that past Supreme Court decisions state that anything that could possibly effect interstate commerce, even if stays within a state, is also covered by the commerce clause.

Click to expand...

+3
In the past, they determined that pretty much everything affects interstate commerce somehow, even if no money or property change hands.
Eg: in the 1930s there was a federal law about how much grain a farmer could grow, and this guy grew the quota, and then some extra to feed his cows. The court determined that because he didn't go out and buy grain because of his actions, he was affecting interstate commerce, and thus within federal jurisdiction.
Anything is covered by the commerce clause.

imported post

cynicist wrote:

BUT there is a problem in that past Supreme Court decisions state that anything that could possibly effect interstate commerce, even if stays within a state, is also covered by the commerce clause.

Click to expand...

+3
In the past, they determined that pretty much everything affects interstate commerce somehow, even if no money or property change hands.
Eg: in the 1930s there was a federal law about how much grain a farmer could grow, and this guy grew the quota, and then some extra to feed his cows. The court determined that because he didn't go out and buy grain because of his actions, he was affecting interstate commerce, and thus within federal jurisdiction.
Anything is covered by the commerce clause.

Click to expand...

This started under FDR when he attempted to add six more judges to the SCOTUS in because chunks of his New Deal program were in danger of being declared unconstitutional. A couple judges then changed their minds and supported his programs, possibly to keep the court packing from happening.

The SCOTUS actually backed off some and put some limits on the federal government under Rehnquist, but then sort of abandoned that stance during a marijuana case in 2005. Thomas' dissent is quite interesting in that case, as he (correctly) points out that if the federal government can regulate a substance that does not affect interstate commerce, has never crossed state lines, and has never been bought or sold anywhere, then they can pretty much criminalize anything.

Too bad we don't have more justices like Thomas.

imported post

Too bad we don't have more justices like Thomas.

Click to expand...

That's for sure.

imported post

cynicist wrote:

In the past, they determined that pretty much everything affects interstate commerce somehow, even if no money or property change hands.
Eg: in the 1930s there was a federal law about how much grain a farmer could grow, and this guy grew the quota, and then some extra to feed his cows. The court determined that because he didn't go out and buy grain because of his actions, he was affecting interstate commerce, and thus within federal jurisdiction.
Anything is covered by the commerce clause.

Click to expand...

At one time the Supreme Court also ruled that "separate but equal" was constitutional too. Several years later they came to their senses and reversed that decision. With the huge overreach of government that has gone on in the last 12+ years, with the right judges in the chairs and the right case being heard, they could very well reverse their earlier commerce clause decision.