New American wrote: The state of Montana approved what commentators are dubbing a “revolutionary” new law earlier this month. The “Montana Firearms Freedom Act” is set to trigger a legal showdown between the federal government and the state, which is exactly what some lawmakers are hoping for.

"It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the legislation. The law would exempt from federal regulation all guns, ammunition, and accessories that are made, sold, and kept within the state — provided they are stamped with the words “Made in Montana.” The idea is that since the federal government justifies its regulations using the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, it has no authority to regulate intrastate trade in firearms.

According to an Associated Press article entitled "Montana gun law targets states' rights clash," the drafters of the bill aim to test the law with a single-shot .22 caliber rifle. The plan is to have a “squeaky-clean” Montanan send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (ATF) threatening to manufacture and sell 20 of the youth-model rifles without a federal permit. If the ATF tries to claim it is illegal, they hope to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. An ATF spokesperson cited in the article had no comment about the legislation.

The text of the bill cites the Ninth and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution which guarantee “to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.” It also cites the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its own constitution which “clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms.”

Similar attempts to challenge the federal government on other issues have prompted armed federal raids and less-than-favorable outcomes in court. The state of California legalized medical marijuana that was grown and kept within the state, but in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since marijuana in California is indistinguishable from marijuana grown elsewhere, the federal government had the authority to regulate both. The firearms in question would be distinguishable from out-of-state guns because of the required stamp, so how the court would rule is still uncertain.

Though criticism of the law has been minimal thus far, some anti-gun activists are up in arms. "Guns cross state lines and they do so constantly, and this is a Sagebrush Rebellion-type effort to light some sort of fire and get something going that's pleasing to the gun nuts and that has very little actual sense," the communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence told the Associated Press, referring to a rebellion by some Western states over grazing and mineral rights on federal land in the seventies and eighties.

“What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana’s business and affairs,” said Republican sponsor Rep. Joel Boniek during the legislature’s debate on the bill. "Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I'd like to support that. But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights." The bill passed easily in both houses and is now spreading to other states including Utah, Tennessee, Texas, and Alaska. "I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress," said Texas state Rep. Leo Berman. He added that the bill filed in the Texas legislature “deals with firearms and ammunition, which raises eyebrows, but it's more of a 10th Amendment bill than a Second Amendment bill.… Sovereignty is a big issue right now."

Montana has defied the federal government on everything from wetlands protection to the Real-ID Act. This is another positive step the state is taking in the battle to rein in an out-of-control federal government that routinely ignores the contract which gives it authority. Speculation about the effect of the new law is running rampant. Commentators have predicted everything from Montana seceding from the Union to federal agents being arrested. Some have called it the first shot in a new war for independence, while others have said it will have almost no effect. But regardless of the outcome in court, if it ever gets there, it is encouraging to see the states rising up to reassert their sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution.

sebster wrote:Is this really what you need to be worrying about right now? Aren't there millions unemployed and facing unemployment?

sebster wrote:Is this really what you need to be worrying about right now? Aren't there millions unemployed and facing unemployment?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, if only we could replace our idiot Pelosi with a straight-thinking, straight-shooting Montanan....

Lordhat wrote:

sebster wrote:Is this really what you need to be worrying about right now? Aren't there millions unemployed and facing unemployment?

Yes it is. At worst, the Feds win, all goes back to the way it was, except we get a higher awareness of the government's refusal to cede power.

At best, Montana (and the other states who follow)gets an influx of small arms dealers and the states reestablish their rights to self governance. We as a people start realizing that governance starts with the individual; You can't blame 'the man' for your failures, they're your failures.

Self reliance is something that certain sectors of the federal government has been actively 'campaigning' against for years now. So your populace has collectively, as a state, decided that a federal regulation has gone too far? Too bad, it's for your own good, new law overturned (See medicinal marijuana in California). You don't believe that seatbelts are as safe as advertised? Too bad, big brother has decided that you cannot asses the risk factors for yourself (Click-it or ticket campaign).

Is this the right time? Yes it is, ESPECIALLY with the current economy; The Fed is VERY focused on the current crisis, and perhaps won't devote it's full attention to this, maybe the new law will 'slip by'. All we need is precedence in the courts, and the (not so slowly) tightening noose that is federal over-regulation gets loosened a bit.

jp400 wrote:I just love how a single thread cant be started without someone outside the US bringing the Anti-US Hate bandwagon into the thread. I mean common!!! Its our country and we will do what we want. We dont tell you how to do anything in your country, so STOP trying to tell us how to run ours.

Seriously...

Envy89 wrote:@ Sebster : why yes... yes there are.

but it is ALLWAYS time for people to fight for thier rights...

Orkeosaurus wrote:You can't ignore what powers of the government are legitimate just because the economy's bad.
It's during times of trouble that it's most important to keep watch. That's when governments generally try to expand; just look at the Nazi party, or the Patriot Act.

sebster wrote:There's a difference, isn't there, between responding to ensure you maintain your current level of rights, and initiating a new program to challenge a level of rights already established? If the feds were ramping up all new levels of gun control then I could see this being an issue.

True, but there isn’t a bill on the level of the Patriot Act waiting for a vote, and the Reichstag isn’t on fire.

But isn’t it also common for a government, when faced with a real problem they’re struggling to address, to instead create a political circus around some other issue. Faced with stagflation entirely of their own making, the Argentinean government invaded the Falklands.

My only question is whether people really believe this is a movement to fight a current encroachment of rights, or whether it might just be a way of distracting people away from the really pressing issues.

Ahtman wrote:No country as complex as the USA can focus on one and only one issue at a time. Even outside the economy there are other problems like the troops in the Middle East, North Korea's saber rattling, filling a Supreme Court nominee, ect ect.

@Sebster: It seems like the divergence between you and the other posters is that in gun rights you are focusing on "gun" while they are focusing on "rights".

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:Is this really what you need to be worrying about right now? Aren't there millions unemployed and facing unemployment?

You can't ignore what powers of the government are legitimate just because the economy's bad.

It's during times of trouble that it's most important to keep watch. That's when governments generally try to expand; just look at the Nazi party, or the Patriot Act.

guns, ammunition, and accessories that are made, sold, and kept within the state

reds8n wrote:

guns, ammunition, and accessories that are made, sold, and kept within the state

And how would they show or demonstrate that any such product would indeed be only kept etc etc in the state ? Seems a fundamental weakness in the argument they are using here.

I assume it wouldn't be acceptable to wall off Montana and enforce vigorous stop and search of everyone moving into or through the place ?

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote:

guns, ammunition, and accessories that are made, sold, and kept within the state

And how would they show or demonstrate that any such product would indeed be only kept etc etc in the state ? Seems a fundamental weakness in the argument they are using here.

I assume it wouldn't be acceptable to wall off Montana and enforce vigorous stop and search of everyone moving into or through the place ?

Reds8n has walked into the exact argument and justification that has been used by Congress and affirmed by SCOTUS.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote:

guns, ammunition, and accessories that are made, sold, and kept within the state

And how would they show or demonstrate that any such product would indeed be only kept etc etc in the state ? Seems a fundamental weakness in the argument they are using here.

I assume it wouldn't be acceptable to wall off Montana and enforce vigorous stop and search of everyone moving into or through the place ?

Reds8n has walked into the exact argument and justification that has been used by Congress and affirmed by SCOTUS.

Well, people taking it across state lines would be breaking the law. Just because people can break a law doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Murder is illegal but people still kill eachother. I doubt that we will be taking it off the books anytime soon because you can't really keep people from killing eachother, just charging them for it after the act. The fact that a law can be broken or is not easy to enforce is a weak reason to strike it down.