Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: The Montana Gun Bill

  1. #1
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    I don't know how many of you are following this story, but it's been getting alot of coverage from Glenn Beck, Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, and several news networks.

    Read the story here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=17935

    I think we need to get this started in Virginia. My rep isn't interested, because she's a far left liberal. Anyone interested on working on this with me?

  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    The Virginia Resolution of 1798, if enforced and applied, could end a lot of the evil coming out of Washington. We could just say, "No thanks, now please leave".

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  3. #3
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    The Virginia Resolution of 1798, if enforced and applied, could end a lot of the evil coming out of Washington. We could just say, "No thanks, now please leave".
    You're very polite to have said "please".
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  4. #4
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    We essentially said "Please leave" in 1861 and look what that got us.

    I suggest dispensing with pleasantries and commence with submitting demands, rather than requests.

    Time to reopen Tredegar Iron Works.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  5. #5
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    I agree, it is time for demands. Requests have gotten us a tyrannical government that takes any power it can. The constitution states that any power not granted the federal government is reserved for the states. But it is the opposite. The federal government grabs powers given to the states, and no one challenges them. We must stop it. If this bill in Montana stands, it will put a stop to a large amount of the power the fedsclaim under the interstate commerce act.

  6. #6
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Has VCDL done any work on this issue? I have not had any success trying to get something started with my state rep (I'm not surprised; not a 2nd Amendment supporter). Montana and Tennessee have already passed this, and Florida is working on it.

    http://www.ocala.com/article/2009072...aven-from-feds

    I would like to see a group here in VA begin to make a push for a similar bill. Washington is close enough that they should be able to hear us if we pass the bill.

    I'm not sure if a petition is the best place to start, but I'd be willing to take the lead and get something started if no one else is.

    If you'd be willing to work with me on this, please let me know.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    We essentially said "Please leave" in 1861 and look what that got us.

    I suggest dispensing with pleasantries and commence with submitting demands, rather than requests.

    Time to reopen Tredegar Iron Works.
    Geez man learn from history for once, leave tredegar dead and buried and take over the shipyards in Norfolk if you actually want a chance of winning. There are lots of real nice toys down there including lots of Carriers, rule the air and the sea. if the enemy can strangle your supply lines you'll lose. the Confederacy had virtually no naval presence which made it almost impossible for their european allies to resupply them. the Union army had possesion of hampton roads/ft monroeand its strategic advantage from day one of the war.

    So go play frogman and capture yourself a shiny new carrier, the george h.w. bush should almost be done by now.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    No one is really advocating re-opening the Tredegar Iron Works, except maybe to call it the Tredegar Gun Works. ("Fine Southern Firearms, made in Virginia, by Virginians, for Virginians". No Federal forms necessary or permitted").

    As for the slap about naval control of Hampton Roads from day one, I might remind you that the Union forces abandoned the Norfolk shipyard and drydock at the opening of the war. The CSS Virginia (plated with Tredegar iron, I believe) damn near broke the Union blockade in March of '62, and certainly would have if the Monitor had sunk on its way down here, as it nearly did.

    Anyway, are you volunteering to help with the Merrima, er, George H.W. Bush??? What were you thinking of re-naming it?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830

    Post imported post

    Dutch Uncle wrote:
    No one is really advocating re-opening the Tredegar Iron Works, except maybe to call it the Tredegar Gun Works. ("Fine Southern Firearms, made in Virginia, by Virginians, for Virginians". No Federal forms necessary or permitted").
    That's what the man from "OCCUPIED,VA" said.

    As for the slap about naval control of Hampton Roads from day one, I might remind you that the Union forces abandoned the Norfolk shipyard and drydock at the opening of the war. The CSS Virginia (plated with Tredegar iron, I believe) damn near broke the Union blockade in March of '62, and certainly would have if the Monitor had sunk on its way down here, as it nearly did.
    Not a slap just stating fact.
    Anyway, are you volunteering to help with the Merrima, er, George H.W. Bush??? What were you thinking of re-naming it?
    Nope, not advocating or volunteering for anything, just pointing out the foolishness of constantly rehashing and refighting a war lost 144 years ago.

    If you're going to refight the war with the voices in your headyou could at least figure out how to win it in the present and future not the past. i'm sure wylde man can come up with something original like the jeb stuart or thomas jackson on his own, though if he managed to pull it off i wouldn't be put off if he named it after himself.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    I take the position that, under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is authorized to regulate interstate commerce in firearms, while the states are exclusively empowered to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms, subject to the provisions of their own constitutions. That's because the states are the sole repository of authority with respect to health, education, the public welfare, and the police power.

    In theory, Montana could make it a crime to interfere with someone who's manufacturing guns for interstate sale and ownership, and they could arrest BATFE agents who try to mess with the gunsmith. But the agents would have a right to have the case removed to the Federal District Court, and I expect we could predict the outcome of that. Then, the local sheriff in Montana who made the arrest would be indicted on federal charges of obstruction of justice.

    And, on May 4, 1970, four unarmed citizens were killed by National Guardsmen while exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and of free speech at Kent State College, in Ohio. They were saying the wrong things.

    Waco, anyone?
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    In theory, Montana could make it a crime to interfere with someone who's manufacturing guns for interstate sale and ownership, and they could arrest BATFE agents who try to mess with the gunsmith. But the agents would have a right to have the case removed to the Federal District Court, and I expect we could predict the outcome of that. Then, the local sheriff in Montana who made the arrest would be indicted on federal charges of obstruction of justice.

    And, on May 4, 1970, four unarmed citizens were killed by National Guardsmen while exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and of free speech at Kent State College, in Ohio. They were saying the wrong things.

    Waco, anyone?
    1) There is a huge difference between interstate and intrastate commerce. The premise of the Montana Law is based upon intrastate commerce. Most federal laws are based upon interstate commerce. No interstate commerce, no ability for the feds to regulate.

    2) There is no "right" for federal agents to have all cases removed to the federal courts.

    3) The Kent State observation is quite provocative. Yes the BATFE are about as defenseless as the students at Kent State, but that does not mean we would shoot them without provocation like the National Guard.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    I agree, there is a huge difference between interstate and intrastate commerce. And, being a Constitutional fundamentalist, and advocate of the "plain meaning rule", I view Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce as only affecting actual transportation of goods and services across state lines.

    But, in the late 1920's, or early '30's (it's been a long time, and I forget) there was a guy in North Dakota or Montana or some such God forsaken place, engaging in farming for self-sufficiency. He, his family, and his animals were fed entirely from the produce of his own small farm. He grew wheat from which he made bread and fed his chickens. The United States had passed a law imposing an excise tax on wheat production. The farmer was charged with the crime of willfully failing to pay the excise tax, and defended on the ground that he didn't owe the tax, as nothing he did involved interstate commerce. The case went to the U.S. Sup. Ct., which announced that, because the farmer grew his own wheat from which he made his own bread for his own consumption, entirely within the boundaries of his own farm in his home state, he was not buying bread products in interstate commerce, and his failure to engage in interstate commerce affected interstate commerce, and he was therefore subject to regulation.

    I can't remember the cite to that case, but it's one of those old standards that every law student is required to read and analyze. It's sort of a "why is that on the news" thing, because the case is obviously bonkers. Yet, it has not only not been overruled, the "affecting interstate commerce" rule has been expanded. Everything everyone does nowadays "affects" interstate commerce, according to the U.S. courts.

    The U.S. could be reigned in, perhaps, if Congress were to pass a law clarifying that only goods and services actually passing in interstate commerce are subject to regulation, but there are so many other laws already there making use of that provision. The National Firearms Act, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (includes the Gun Control Act), for example.

    Here's the statute that authorizes removal of cases initiated under state law against federal officers. This, to me is like the "Beware of Dog" sign issue. If you have a sign like that, and the dog actually bites someone, then that sign (or doormat) will be used as evidence that you knew the dog was vicious, and that you are therefore liable for having negligently failed to restrain the vicious dog. This statute is evidence that the U.S. knew perfectly well that its agents were going to be violating local law including the commission of crimes, and that's why it enacted this "get out of jail free" card.

    The problem is that individual congressmen, who care principally about maintaining their fiefdoms, can be "gotten". Everyone has violated some law somewhere, or can at least be made to look bad. If Patrick Henry had George III sitting in the City of Washington instead of London, while making his speeches in Richmond, he might have been a bit more circumspect. Rome ceased to function as a republic precisely for this reason. Individual senators can be "gotten".


    28 USC Sec. 1442 01/08/2008

    -EXPCITE-
    TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
    PART IV - JURISDICTION AND VENUE
    CHAPTER 89 - DISTRICT COURTS; REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURTS

    -HEAD-
    Sec. 1442. Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

    -STATUTE-
    (a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State
    court against any of the following may be removed by them to the
    district court of the United States for the district and division
    embracing the place wherein it is pending:
    (1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or
    any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of
    any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity
    for any act under color of such office or on account of any
    right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for
    the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of
    the revenue.
    (2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such
    officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of
    any law of the United States.
    (3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for any act
    under color of office or in the performance of his duties;
    (4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for any act in the
    discharge of his official duty under an order of such House.

    (b) A personal action commenced in any State court by an alien
    against any citizen of a State who is, or at the time the alleged
    action accrued was, a civil officer of the United States and is a
    nonresident of such State, wherein jurisdiction is obtained by the
    State court by personal service of process, may be removed by the
    defendant to the district court of the United States for the
    district and division in which the defendant was served with
    process.

    -SOURCE-
    (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 938; Pub. L. 104-317, title II,
    Sec. 206(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3850.)
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  13. #13
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Exactly +1

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    The [bull$****] interstate commerce case regarding the growing of wheat by a farmer for his own consumption is Wickard v Filburn.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Potomac Falls, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    My understanding is that the intent of the words of the Founding Fathers is different that the interpretation being used today. Back then, the FFs were concerned about the health of a new nation. They wanted to encourage trade between states and territories to foster interdependence and a sense of unity. The word "regulate" meant "to make regular"...that is, to encourage such interaction -- not to manage, control, tax and impose onerous rules and "regulations." Only a Government bent on tyranny and control would have interpreted the FF's intent as an opportunity to grab power.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't quibble with your interpretation, but would add that the power grab occurred almost immediately. There's a famous case that everyone learns about in school, Marbury v. Madison. The reason it's touted as such a great achievement in the annals of legal history and jurisprudence is that it purportedly established the principle of judicial review.

    Hogwash.

    The United States was invented in 1789; Marbury was decided in 1803. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when Chief Justice Marshall converted the Constitution from having been the architectural plan for the United States to its servant.

    The principle of judicial review was not new in 1803; it was around since the English Court of Kings' Bench had been established hundreds of years earlier. Marbury wasn't about judicial review; it was about who gets to decide what the Constitution means. But Marshall didn't need to go there; there really was no Constitutional issue; the case was about whether or not Marbury was entitled to his commission as a justice of the peace for the City of Washington after the change in administration (Adams to Madision).

    Marshall announced that only the Supreme Court of the U.S. could be the arbiter of what the Constitution means (that is, not the people and not the states). His reasoning is that the Constitution is a matter of federal law, and since the U.S. Sup. Ct. is the court of last resort as to matters of federal law, only that court has the power to act as the final interpreter of the meaning of the Constitution.

    Very clever reasoning. He was an awfully bright man. But what he did, and no one seemed to have noticed right away, is that he turned the principle on its head. The Constitution is the source of power and authority of the federal government, and as such, is not federal law, but the people's tool to supply the basis of federal law. My view is that the Constitution exists independently from that which it creates, and is not subordinate to its own creation.

    I would further suggest that the Great War betweeen the United States and Virginia was fought over that precise issue: who gets to decide what the Constitution means. The slavery issue was the spin the U.S. put on the war in order to obtain support for its invasion of South Carolina. And ever since that time, the U.S. has officially characterized the war as "The War between the States" or "The Civil War". It was neither. It was the U.S. act against all the states, and the people, by which it took over control of the Constitution militarily.

    In my mind, this is all fait accompli. Does anyone seriously imagine that it will be possible to go back to before 1803 in obtaining intellectually honest interpretations of the Constitution? Everything the United States does is in the interests of the United States. Where's the surprise in that? The republic has been gone a long time, the U.S. is merely in the process of consolidation and integrating its gains.

    At this point, people wishing that the Constitution were honestly interpreted reminds me of a joke: how many Virginians does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: three - one to change the bulb, and three to stand around and talk about what things were like before it changed.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Potomac Falls, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    My view is that the Constitution exists independently from that which it creates, and is not subordinate to its own creation.
    Kinda like the fox watching the henhouse. Or, to paraphrase Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, no system (Government) can be fully explained (be consistent and controlled) from within the system. To your point, an outside agency (the people), with a perspective external to the system (Government) is required to fully define (control) the system.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    I would further suggest that the Great War betweeen the United States and Virginia was fought over that precise issue: who gets to decide what the Constitution means. The slavery issue was the spin the U.S. put on the war in order to obtain support for its invasion of South Carolina. And ever since that time, the U.S. has officially characterized the war as "The War between the States" or "The Civil War". It was neither. It was the U.S. act against all the states, and the people, by which it took over control of the Constitution militarily.
    Mostly.
    It is the war of Northern Aggression. How the Constitution will be seen really depends on how the war ends. We'll have to wait for that!:shock:

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    In discussing this issue with my son, this evening, I realized that there are two additional points that I think need stating.

    1) In the event that a Montana FFL should acquire and sell firearms manufactured in Montana to a Montana resident, without doing the background check or recordkeeping required by federal law, and BATFE takes a notion to roust the gunshop owner, a local Montana sheriff or police department could decide that the rousting (including seizing the gunshop's inventory) could be robbery and grand larceny under Montana law, and arrest the BATFE agents as criminals. Suppose that happened, and the BATFE agents elected to have the prosecutions removed to federal district court. That "right" is a matter of federal statute, not Constitutional law, and depends for its effectiveness upon the "necessary powers" clause. So, what if Montana then decides that the BATFE agents, acting outside the scope of federal authority, were not entitled to that protection, since there were no "necessary powers" involved, and refused to turn the agents over? Or, if the agents had been freed on bond, failed to appear for their trial in state court on the assumption that the case had been successfully "removed"? Those agents would then be indicted as felons, and possibly convicted in absentia and thus persons who are not permitted to be in possession of firearms under federal law.

    2) The United States is "drinking its own bathwater". It not only created the hogwash (i.e., bathwater, question is, who's the hog?) about the United States being the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means, it actually believes its own hogwash. Or at least behaves as though it were true, which amounts to the same thing. Here's the point: the U.S. doesn't seem to get that its power and authority flows from the Constitution, not the other way around. And by destroying the document that gives it life, it is destroying itself. By weaking the moral and social authority of the Constitution by intellectually dishonest and self-serving interpretations, the United States is killing itself.

    My son asked me why, given the complicated factual situation that gave rise to the Great War upon the States, including the moral issues involved in states having defined property to include possession of humans, I thought there could have been any other resolution of the problems. "What's greater", he asked, "the Constitution or the moral or natural law that implies that no human can 'own' another human?"

    His view was that there was no simple solution. I disagreed. Just as I often opine that each state has the prerogative, under the Constitution, to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms any way it sees fit, within its own borders, and subject to its own constitution, each state has the prerogative, under the Constitution, to define what property is. For me to assert that, as a moral issue, Maryland is totally screwed up because they won't allow citizens the power to defend themselves, their homes, and their families, is simply a matter of my opinion; not law. The simple solution is to allow the Constitution to be exactly what it is, to interpret it honestly and to give full effect to everything it says. And each state would then have to live with the consequences of its decisions. We can't protect people from themselves, nor can the United States protect the states from bad moral choices.

    Take the recent Heller decision, for example. Although the principle that a person has the right to defend himself was justified, the Court expressed, in "obiter dicta" (things expressed which were not essential to the decision and thus not part of the "holding" of the case), the idea that the United States and its agencies may enact "reasonable regulations" regarding the ownership, possession, and use of weapons, notwithstanding the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

    That kind of fudging is exactly what I'm talking about. It's fundamentally dishonest. And that approach to Constitutional interpretation is the single greatest threat to national security, as far as I'm concerned.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •