Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The Firearms Freedom Act - It is 01 October, and Montana has not caved to the BATFE!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    Yah 10th A, Yeah freedom, Boot the BATFE! I know this is a lot to read, but it is actually brilliant work. The first link is great. BATFE's latest response was Sept 29. and their letter is at the bottom of the post.

    The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is sweeping the Nation.

    Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

    Since its passage in Montana, a clone of the Firearms Freedom Act has been enacted in Tennessee, and has been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Minnesota and Florida. Legislators in many other states have announced that they will introduce FFA clones when their legislatures next convene.

    The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise

    Link: http://firearmsfreedomact.com/

    Gun Groups to Sue over Montana-made and Retained Firearms

    MISSOULA, MT – the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the
    Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have formed a strategic alliance to
    litigate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA),
    passed by the 2009 Montana Legislature and signed into law by Montana
    Governor Brian Schweitzer.

    The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are
    not subject to any federal authority, resisting Congress’s
    dramatically expanded use of the interstate commerce clause to
    justify Washington’s regulation of virtually all of the private
    economy. The MFFA also applies to firearm accessories and ammunition.

    MSSA is most well-known for advancing pro-gun and pro-hunting bills
    in the Montana Legislature, and has been successful with 54 pro-gun
    and pro-hunting measures in the past 25 years. SAF is a pro-gun
    foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights
    of gun owners primarily in judicial fora. SAF has been a party to
    numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.

    The primary purpose of the MFFA is to set up a legal challenge to
    federal power under the commerce clause. MSSA and SAF expect to
    mount this legal challenge by filing a suit for a declaratory
    judgment to test the principles of the MFFA in federal court on
    October 1st, the day the Montana law becomes effective.

    The concept of the Firearms Freedom Act has caught fire
    nationwide. Tennessee has passed a clone of the MFFA. Other clones
    have been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, Florida,
    South Carolina, Minnesota and Michigan. Legislators in 19 other
    states have indicated that they will introduce MFFA clones soon or
    when their legislatures next convene. See: http://firearmsfreedomact.com

    This wave of interest across the Nation is what the federal judiciary
    calls “emerging consensus” and will play an important role in
    validating the principles of the MFFA.

    MSSA president Gary Marbut commented, “We’re excited to get the MFFA
    into court to articulate and argue the principles of freedom and
    states’ rights. It’s especially encouraging that people in so many
    other states are getting tickets to ride this particular freedom
    train. It will be an interesting journey, and we hope successful one.”

    SAF founder Alan Gottlieb added, “This is an issue that needs public
    attention because it challenges federal intrusion into an area where
    the federal government clearly, and literally, has no business.”

    The MSSA/SAF legal team is currently working up its arguments and
    litigation strategy. The team has identified several areas of
    rationale’ that have never been discussed before in cases about
    Congress’s commerce clause power. The general thesis is that
    Washington has gone way overboard in attempting to regulate the
    internal affairs of states under the strained theory that states’
    internal activities are related to interstate commerce.

    Although the MFFA addresses firearms, ammunition and firearm
    accessories specifically, it is primarily about states’ rights and
    the commerce clause power of Congress. Firearms are the object;
    states’ rights and freedom are the subjects.

    Link: http://firearmsfreedomact.com/2009/0...ined-firearms/

    Letter Exchange between a Free Man and BATFE

    August 21, 2009
    Dear Mr. Bray,

    I wish to manufacture firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition consistent with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, enacted by the 2009 Montana Legislature, which becomes effective on October 1, 2009.
    http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HBO246.htm

    Can you tell me if it is permissible under federal law to either:
    1) Manufacture such items solely for my own use in Montana, or

    2) Manufacture such items for sale to others only within Montana

    Thank you for your timely response.

    Sincerely,
    Gary Marbut

    September 29, 2009
    Dear Mr. Marbut,

    I have reviewed your letter dated August 21, 2009. In that letter you indicate that you wish to manufacture firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition consistent with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (Montana HB 246.) You inquired whether under Federal law it is permissible to manufacture such items for your sole use, and whether you could manufacture such items for sale to others within Montana.

    As a first matter, the manufacture of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories for your personal use does generally not require licensure under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended (GCA). If the firearm, however, is of a type that is defined under 26 U.S.C. Section 5845 (i. e., a National Firearms Act firearm), you will need to file an ATF Form 1, and have it approved by ATF prior to manufacture. I note that in Montana HB 246, the definition of firearm accessory includes sound suppressors. A sound suppressor could come within the definition of a silencer or muffler under the National Firearms Act (NFA), and manufacture of such, even for personal use, would require filing an ATF Form 1, and approval from ATF.

    Your other concern is whether it is permissible under Federal law to manufacture firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition for sale to others within Montana. The manufacture of firearms or ammunition for sale to others within Montana requires licensure by ATF. In order to become a licensed manufacturer you will need to file an ATF Form 7 with ATF’s Federal Firearms Licensing Center. I have attached a form with instructions for your use. The manufacture of firearms accessories for sale within Montana, with the exception of sound suppressors, does not require a license from ATF. If you desire to manufacture sound suppressors for sale, please contact our ATF Salt

    Lake City Industry Operations Office at 801-524-7000. That office can assist you in becoming a manufacturer of NFA firearms. Also, if you are engaging in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for sale to others, and desire ATF to examine a sample of such firearm or ammunition, please contact ATF’s Fireanns Technology Branch at 304-260-3414, who will arrange to have the firearm or ammunition evaluated at the local ATF office in Montana.

    As a final matter, ATF hopes to work with you in obtaining any necessary manufacturing licenses required under the GCA, or registration of firearms covered by the NFA. However, you should be aware that any unlicensed manufacturing of firearms or ammunition for sale or resale, or the manufacture of any NFA weapons, including sound suppressors, without proper registration and payment of tax, is a violation of Federal law and could lead to the forfeiture of such items and potential criminal prosecution under the GCA or NFA. To the extent that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the GCA and NFA, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.

    If you have any questions about any of the matters addressed in this letter, please contact Resident Agent in Charge Ken Bray at 406-657-6886.

    Sincerely,
    Richard E. Chase
    Special Agent in Charge
    Denver Field Division

    Link: http://firearmsfreedomact.com/2009/0...r-re-the-mffa/
    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 inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Weatherford, TX
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    "To the extent that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the GCA and NFA, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."


    This is what we need to fight. The BATF is unconstitutional and out of line.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    The AP has published an article about Montana's lawsuit against the federal government. What I wonder is what has changed, or what argument will they use to get around the SCOTUS case that broadened the Commerce Clause to it's current, insanely wide scope? Surely if a single farmer growing food for his own consumption affects interstate commerce and can thus be regulated, then an entire state manufacturing and consuming their own firearms products would have an even bigger impact on the interstate commerce of those products.

    Not saying I like it, but unless there are new facts, or a different angle to argue, courts don't generally change standing precedent.

    TFred


    Montana to feds: we don't want your gun control

    By MATT GOURAS (AP)

    HELENA, Mont. — If Montana has its way in a lawsuit filed Thursday, there will be far less federal gun control in the state.

    The state's libertarian streak — which has spawned efforts to buck the federal Real ID Act and sparked widespread contempt for the Patriot Act — is now triggering a fight over whether Montana should have sovereignty over made-in-Montana guns and equipment.

    If gun advocates win, the state could decide which rules, if any, would control the manufacturer, sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia. And Montana would be exempt from rules on federal gun registration, background checks and dealer-licensing.

    "For guns, it means we can make our own in Montana and sell them in Montana as long as they are stamped 'Made in Montana' and don't leave the state," said Gary Marbut, who runs the Montana Shooting Sports Association and is leading the lawsuit. "We will be able to do that without federal regulation, or having the ATF breath down your neck."

    The association, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation in the lawsuit, hopes to ultimately win a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits the application and reach of federal rules over state business. The suit is challenging the right of the federal government to oversee gun sales under the guise of interstate commerce regulation.

    The filing in U.S. District Court in Missoula comes a day after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would consider a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban and adds to a growing list of federal lawsuits filed by gun-rights proponents that challenge local or federal gun control laws.

    The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recently reminded Montana gun dealers that they need to properly mark guns, fully record and report all sales, conduct background checks and follow all the rules.

    "These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines," assistant ATF director Carson Carroll wrote in a letter to dealers.

    That warning was prompted by a declaration passed by the Montana Legislature earlier in the year, which stated that Montana held authority over guns made in the state. The declaration, passed under the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, went into effect Thursday.

    Attacking federal gun control was an easy target in a state like Montana, where politicians of all stripes actively seek the endorsement of gun rights groups. Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, said Thursday that the lawsuit is a way for the state to assert its sovereignty.

    Tennessee has passed a similar declaration, although no lawsuit has been filed there.

    The declaration only advanced in the Montana Legislature because of arguments it would spur economic development with gun manufacturing, said Travis McAdam of the Montana Human Rights Network. Other issues will arise if gun advocates are successful with the lawsuit, he said.

    "What happens when these guns do show up in other states and what if they are used to commit crimes in other states?" McAdam said.

    Marbut pointed out that it's already against the law for felons in Montana to buy guns, and it would be illegal under federal rules to take a made-in-Montana gun to another state. Also, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act specifies that machine guns or guns that shoot explosive projectiles aren't allowed in the state.

  4. #4
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    I really really hope someone starts making full auto suppressed rifles in Montana for use in Montana. The BATF should not even exist.

    Something tells me they won't be rolling over folks there like some barely trained religious cult.

    They need to at least allow 3 round burst rifles. Finished reading the article as I posted this. They don't allow machine guns? I wonder if their description only counts for belt fed weapons.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Post imported post

    To what extent is the State of Montana itself going to participate in the lawsuit? Why are private groups leading the fight? Or am I missing something here?

    Very good news by the way

  6. #6
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Squid13 wrote:
    "To the extent that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the GCA and NFA, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."


    This is what we need to fight. The BATF is unconstitutional and out of line.
    You are so right.

    We must work as one to see the BATFE completely disbanded and prosecutions begin against agents who are guilty of murder while employed by an unconstitutional agency. We must start trials against any Senator or Congressman or President who gave any public support for the BATFEfor conspiracy to commit murder. It is time we the people stop giving these criminals a pass and we prosecute them to the full extent of the law... Constitutional Law.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  7. #7
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    The AP has published an article about Montana's lawsuit against the federal government. What I wonder is what has changed, or what argument will they use to get around the SCOTUS case that broadened the Commerce Clause to it's current, insanely wide scope?
    Well let me see... first, the States trump the Fed and the SCOTUS. States can overrule both. If the States had any balls at all, they'd nullify all SCOTUS rulings that were not explicitly covered by the Constitution and prevent Federal interference in State business. If the Fed then decides to bring in Federal Law enforcement to try and arrest people... you just arrest the Federal police and put them in jail. Every time the Fed sends more, you arrest them and put them in jail until the Fed gets the message. States are sovereign. It really is time for States to stand up and tell the Federal Government where to stick it.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Weatherford, TX
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    If the Fed then decides to bring in Federal Law enforcement to try and arrest people... you just arrest the Federal police and put them in jail. Every time the Fed sends more, you arrest them and put them in jail until the Fed gets the message. States are sovereign. It really is time for States to stand up and tell the Federal Government where to stick it.
    +1,000,000:celebrate

  9. #9
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    The goal here should be to tie the Feds up in knots. Citizens are now permitted to make their own firearms as long as it is not a business. There is no requirement that private citizens not mark their guns "Made in Montana". So the feds have a very difficult case to prove if they find a person with a made in Montana gun.

    Exploit the inherent weakness in what the feds are trying to do. Ask lots of questions to local BATFE offices about making your own guns. Post the various answers that you get here. It will be fun to compare answers, and may be productive to defending the 10th A and booting the BATFE.
    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 inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    SNIP If the Fed then decides to bring in Federal Law enforcement to try and arrest people... you just arrest the Federal police and put them in jail. Every time the Fed sends more, you arrest them and put them in jail until the Fed gets the message.
    I'm going off on a tangent for just a moment to clear up something.

    The "Fed" is used to signify the Federal Reserve, which is no more federal than Federal Express.

    This is not meant as a criticism of Wash's abbreviation. I offer it to prevent misunderstanding--people coming to think the "the Fed" = federal government.

    Not that the Federal Reserveisn't plenty badin its own right, creating inflation and so forth. Its just that the Federal Reserve is not the federal government, nor is it a government agency. It is a banking cartel unconstitutionally given financial powers which include counterfeiting money.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    "If the Fed then decides to bring in Federal Law enforcement to try and arrest people... you just arrest the Federal police and put them in jail. Every time the Fed sends more, you arrest them and put them in jail until the Fed gets the message. States are sovereign. It really is time for States to stand up and tell the Federal Government where to stick it."


    Yep, I agree. It is the states that are supposed to have power over the federal government, not the other way around. As I understand it, a sheriff's power exceeds that of any federal agents and he can arrest anyone, up to and including the president. Wouldn't that be a kick to arrest the feds when they are sent in to ride herd over a state?

    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!

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    "If the Fed then decides to bring in Federal Law enforcement to try and arrest people... you just arrest the Federal police and put them in jail. Every time the Fed sends more, you arrest them and put them in jail until the Fed gets the message. States are sovereign. It really is time for States to stand up and tell the Federal Government where to stick it."


    Yep, I agree. It is the states that are supposed to have power over the federal government, not the other way around. As I understand it, a sheriff's power exceeds that of any federal agents and he can arrest anyone, up to and including the president. Wouldn't that be a kick to arrest the feds when they are sent in to ride herd over a state?
    I have heard this about sherriffs too. But if Joe Arpaiowon't, who will?

  13. #13
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    "If the Fed then decides to bring in Federal Law enforcement to try and arrest people... you just arrest the Federal police and put them in jail. Every time the Fed sends more, you arrest them and put them in jail until the Fed gets the message. States are sovereign. It really is time for States to stand up and tell the Federal Government where to stick it."


    Yep, I agree. It is the states that are supposed to have power over the federal government, not the other way around. As I understand it, a sheriff's power exceeds that of any federal agents and he can arrest anyone, up to and including the president. Wouldn't that be a kick to arrest the feds when they are sent in to ride herd over a state?
    I have heard this about sherriffs too. But if Joe Arpaiowon't, who will?
    I would be interesting, that's for sure. And what would the feds do if it did happen? What could they do? The governor could call out the National Guard and the militia (the Second Amendment at work there) to back up a sheriff's actions. Could be interesting.

    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!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kalispell, Montana, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.



    So there you have BATFE, absolutely no authority to enforce federal law in the states unless its treason, piracy or counterfeiting. Fellow citizens, stop being sheep and fight back at all times.



  15. #15
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Agrippa wrote:
    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.



    So there you have BATFE, absolutely no authority to enforce federal law in the states unless its treason, piracy or counterfeiting. Fellow citizens, stop being sheep and fight back at all times.

    Exactly! We need to begin to fight back. Some people will scoff and tell us we're crazy or fringe and that we'll never succeed because we don't have enough support. The support will grow as we re-educate the public to the truth. It is happening and we will eventually Restore this Republic.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

Posting Permissions

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