3rd State Declares Sovereignty From BATFE

[Sheldon]

I am still trying to figure out what this act does other than posturing and trying to make the legislatures look like they are doing something. Who is going to take this to the SCOTUS and on what basis? Until someone like Remington or Winchester actually sets up a plant in Montana this whole deal is nothing but hot air. Same way with the bill in SC and the other states, right now it is simply a solution in search of a problem.

It does a big something!!

All any gun company would have to do is to move an assembly plant into the state and it becomes exempt by law, and an assembly plant could be set up in basically any old empty gas station, school, warehouse, or retail store......

Set up, start up cost would be minimal, overhead very small... All they would need is a small skilled labor pool and that could be had by canvasing the machine shops....

Can you say new industry and jobs in the state....

[CathyInBlue]

I heard the talking heads on FoxNews talking about these state laws and I think it was Judge Napolitano who asserted that it's current SCOTUS law that the federal government can still regulate wholy intrastate trade if that trade bears a substantial similarity to trade conducted interstate, so just because every part is stamped "MADE IN MT. NOT FOR EXPORT FROM MT", if the gun still looks and operates similarly to guns which are exported from Montana, then the intrastate manufacture of the weapon would still fall under federal regulation.

First step in taking something like this before the SCOTUS would be to get that reversed.

[Bohemian]

The Montana Version Sucks... as I previously itemized, it totally defeats the purpose...

NOW, the New Hampshire Version on the other hand is much better...
HCR6 (2009) | New Hampshire Liberty Alliance

E.G.:

...
That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.


II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.


III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.


V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.


VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and


That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

...

[wolfhunter]

This is an attempt to overturn a SCOTUS decision from the '40s. A farmer was told that growing an acre of wheat, grinding his own flour, and baking his own bread was a matter of interstate commerce. That decision has given the feds access and control in many areas where they don't belong. The point of this new law is to try and regain some states' rights. If things are put back at the state level, we as individuals can have a slightly greater level of control.

[utimmer43]

This is an attempt to overturn a SCOTUS decision from the '40s...

True, but I believe that it is dangerous to do it using firearms. Firearms are NOT a state right, they are a natural right of each individual. So, even if we win, we lose because now that sends a message to the states that they may regulate firearms however they wish. As Bo stated earlier, this is especially true because the MT law excludes machine guns. If it's not all-inclusive it leaves it wide open for all sorts of twisting and misinterpretation, just like the SCOTUS decision regarding the commerce clause in the 40's that you are talking about.

[Bohemian]

to reiterate what i posted previously...

MONTANA HB246 2009 SUCKS!

AKA: "Montana Firearms Freedom Act"

THE MONTANA VERSION SUCKS! AND WE NEED TO GET IT AMENDED FAST, BEFORE THIS GETS BEFORE SCOTUS!

EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT A MONTANA RESIDENT, WE ALL NEED TO TAKE ACTION ASAP...

THAT MEANS WE NEED TO WRITE THE MONTANA SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION (The original lobbyist of the bill) and the Governor, and Legislators in Montana and commend them for their actions, but make them painfully aware that it is HIGHLY DEFICIENT, AND AMBIGUOUS IN ITS CURRENT STATE!

AND WE NEED TO WRITE GLENN BECK AT FOX NEWS, THE National Rifle Association AND GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA AND TELL THEM THAT THEY ARE MISLEADING FOX VIEWERS, AND SUPPORTERS OF THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT WHEN THEY OMIT THE EXCLUSIONS OF THE MONTANA BILL, AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT IT GETS AMENDED BEFORE IT GETS TO COURT!
OR TOUT HOW MONTANA IS A MODEL STATE OR HOW GOOD THIS IS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

THIS NOW INCLUDES AT LEAST TEXAS, ONE OF THEIR LEGISLATORS WAS ON GLENN BECK FRIDAY NIGHT 05/15/2009 AND STATED THEY JUST INTRODUCED THE MONTANA BILL AS WRITTEN IN TEXAS!

IF you have not figured it out yet, THIS IS A HUGE FRICKING PROBLEM FOLKS!

THE MONTANA BILL AS WRITTEN TRANSFERS ONE INFRINGEMENT TO ANOTHER...

I was excited about Montana's bill, till I actually read it...

The Montana bill is a bust, it totally defeats the purpose...
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

E.G.:
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
...
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device
...

The problem with the Montana exclusion is it, defeats the entire purpose of the bill... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", period, end of story... The Second amendment does not say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" except if your zip code is x, your standing at y or the type/class of firearm you have or desire to have is z.

The people in Montana need to write their governor and representatives, and tell them to amend this b.s. that they sold them out on... either the 2nd and 10th amendments matter or they don't; no federal gun laws and no infringements on the second amendment by the states or the federal government period..

AND the rest of us need to make sure NO MORE MONTANA versions get passed...

These guys are legislators trying to get state-level legislators from ALL STATES to pass a MONTANA VERSION of this DEFICIENT, AMBIGUOUS piece of legislation...
HELP EDUCATE THEM!
Patrick Henry Caucus:
The Patrick Henry Caucus - Home Page

Montana Shooting Sports Association:
Montana Shooting Sports Association

Write your representatives (locally and in Washington:
NRA-ILA :: Action Center

Contact the NRA (No More Second Amendment Compromises!:
https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx

Contact the GOA (SET THEM STRAIGHT ABOUT MONTANA BEING A MODEL STATE (NOT)):
National Parks Gun Ban: Coburn Amendment Passes Overwhelmingly

Contact the Governor of Montana about the Second Amendment Death Warrant he just signed, and ask for an amendment thereof ASAP!:
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer

Ditto for Montana's Lt. Governor:
Montana Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger - mt.gov - Montana's Official State Website

List of ALL of Montana's Legislators:
Montana Legislature: Sessions

Contact Governor Rick Perry of Texas:
Office of the Governor - Rick Perry - Contact

Contact Texas Legislators:
Contact Your Legislators--Texas

Contact Glenn Beck:
http://www.glennbeck.com/

Ditto...
http://the912project.com/

Gary Marbut (whom apparently authored the original draft of Montana's HB 246 2009:
gary AT marbut DOT com
http://www.marbut.com/expert/

Educate, your friends, family, legislators, etc., on The Unabridged Second Amendment:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

[eckersr]

Montana is a fine state

[melloyello]

I don't get it. Where was the problem? Right now, there's an activity that's wholly prohibitted, therefore, no one is doing it legally. They didn't want to make something legal because no one was doing it legally at the time?

I read somewhere that it is not illegal to manufacture a firearm in SC under two conditions: it is not made for resale (personal use only) and you are permitted to own a firearm.

From the ATF website, http://www.atf.gov/firearms/building_a_firearm.pdf, "Building a Firearm"

Question: Is it legal to assemble a firearm from commercially available parts kits that can be purchased via internet or shotgun news?

Answer: For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18
U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.

The GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include the following:
“…(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily
converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive: (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.” ....There is a lot more about purchasing imported parts and firearms which is illegal under GCA, NFA and 922r Compliance.

[danhill]

In the previous legislatives session in South Carolina a similar bill was introduced. It never got off the ground primarily because no one could find anyone in SC that it would apply to. There are no gun manufacturers in SC that would be involved and so it would only apply to someone who started up a business or a individual making one.

Or this was at least how I heard it. It would not apply to gun modifications unless the gun was made in the state so the deal fell through. If someone is willing to start up a gun company in SC I'll bet we could get it passed.

There is now gun manufacturing in South Carolina. That's where FN is making the new Winchester Model 70s and maybe some others as well. Now, you have something to fight for!

[Bohemian]

IF this is done right and NOT the way Montana has done it; it could repeal for starters:

• 1934 NFA
• 1968 GCA
• 1986 FOPA
• Repeal the Unconstitutional 16th Amendment & eliminate the IRS & the BATFE!