PDA

View Full Version : Montana Poised to Buck Federal Gun Control


rp55
04-07-2009, 4:03 PM
From that crazy bunch that threatened to secede if SCOTUS did not uphold 2A in Heller. From The Flathead Beacon (http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/montana_poised_to_buck_federal_gun_control/9392/)

HELENA Montana-made guns may form the basis for a court showdown over states' rights if the governor signs a bill to release some firearms in the state from federal regulation.

The proposed law aims to exempt firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana from federal gun laws. Since the state has few gun laws of its own, the legislation would allow some gunowners and sellers in the state to skirt registration, licensing requirements and background checks entirely.

"We'd like to just be able to make our own guns here in Montana and have the feds stay out of it," said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which helped draft the bill.

The real target, though, is the U.S. Supreme Court. And Marbut and others believe they can hit that mark with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot bolt-action .22 rifle.

In particular, they plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will then file a lawsuit in federal court with any luck triggering a legal battle that lands in the nation's highest court.

House Bill 246 sailed through the Montana Legislature, but Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer has not yet offered a position on the measure, which awaits his action.

The federal enforcement agency for gun laws has also not taken a firm stand.

"ATF is not going to take a position on this because we don't make any of the laws, we just enforce the laws that Congress makes," said Carrie DiPirro, spokeswoman for the Denver field division, which oversees Montana.

Through the Constitution, Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce, which serves as the legal basis for gun regulation in the United States.

Efforts to bypass that authority have been heard before by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, the court upheld federal regulation of marijuana in California, even if its use is limited to noncommercial purposes such as medical reasons and it is grown and used within a state's borders.

However, Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said the introduction of a "Made in Montana' stamp and stay in Montana guideline might give some mettle to Montana's latest pitch for sovereignty.

In the Gonzalez v. Raich case argued by Barnett, the court said that because marijuana produced within and outside of California is essentially indistinguishable, the government must regulate both to enforce national drug laws. Montana, though, could potentially argue that its guns are sufficiently unique and segregated as to lie outside of overarching federal regulatory schemes, Barnett said.

The Montana effort follows fears here and elsewhere that the election of Barack Obama as president would trigger more gun regulation, sparking a rush to stock up on firearms in the months following the inauguration.

But supporters insist House Bill 246 has been tailored to hit a different bull's eye than gun freedoms.

"Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I'd like to support that," said bill sponsor Rep. Joel Boniek, R-Livingston, during its House debate. "But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights."

leitung
04-07-2009, 4:07 PM
I am going to move to Montana, this state has it's head on straight. Truely a "free" state..

JTecalo
04-07-2009, 4:34 PM
they like their guns in Montana for sure.

but the last time I spent any time there (admittedly many, many years back) the liquor stores were state run or something like it. Closed early, no sales on Sunday, etc.

They did have a liquor store with a drive up window though, so all in all not a bad place to live.

Ford8N
04-07-2009, 4:57 PM
With all the receiver manufactures making AR/AK/G3/FAL clones. It wouldn't be to hard to move and build in the state.

I know there are state governments in neighboring states to Montana who have the same attitude towards firearms, so Montana isn't the only place. Totally different than the vassals and serfs that are the majority in this state. We get the government we elect.:(

Sniper3142
04-07-2009, 5:00 PM
I was there (Helena Montana) a couple of years ago.

Nice bunch of folks and some very beautiful country.

:)

I wish them all the luck in the world!

scobun
04-07-2009, 5:14 PM
If and when Montana makes their play for states rights, I'd move their in a heartbeat.

Anyone interested in such ideas and dreams should read The Third Revolution by Anthony Lewis. I really enjoyed reading it.

VW*Mike
04-07-2009, 5:25 PM
Outstanding!

CAL.BAR
04-07-2009, 6:09 PM
I am going to move to Montana, this state has it's head on straight. Truely a "free" state..

Just be careful, they have lots of "compounds" up there and you had better hope that you're not on anyone's "dislike" list

CAL.BAR
04-07-2009, 6:10 PM
Please - Montana for years bucked the trend with no speed limits (flying in the face of the federal 55mph stuff) Then in order to get federal highway funds, suddenly they have speed limits now. So what Federal funds are they willing to loose for this one.

ad6mj
04-07-2009, 6:46 PM
I've never understood how "interstate commerce" has been able to justify many things. That's as ridiculous as the 2nd Amendment not being an individual right. I think there needs to be more effort on defending the 10th Amendment.

wolf13
04-07-2009, 8:11 PM
Please - Montana for years bucked the trend with no speed limits (flying in the face of the federal 55mph stuff) Then in order to get federal highway funds, suddenly they have speed limits now. So what Federal funds are they willing to loose for this one.

I remember reading that though they have speed limits, they are not enforced too often. Though I agree that no state is going to be able to turn its back on the federal government that way things are set up. There is far too much at stake for them, and they can't afford to loose everything.

7x57
04-07-2009, 10:16 PM
Please - Montana for years bucked the trend with no speed limits (flying in the face of the federal 55mph stuff) Then in order to get federal highway funds, suddenly they have speed limits now. So what Federal funds are they willing to loose for this one.

I lived there during the federal 55 mph limit. Yeah, we had one in order to get federal highway funds. Wanna know what the feds got for their arm-twisting? The fine was $5, flat, any speed (because if you were going too fast by Montana standards you got a "careless driving" ticket--theoretically it wasn't for your speed but for going too fast for conditions, IIRC). That's good, but the biggest problem is that insurance companies could discourage you from exercising your God-given right to break the sound barrier in your old Chevy pickup by raising your rates. That would, of course, be wrong, so they fixed that loophole by ensuring that speeding tickets didn't go on your record. State Farm can't worry their pretty little heads about what they don't know.

Now, a fine is still a pain because you have to pay it some way, and the point of the $5 fine was to keep a spot at the trough, not actually stop people from driving faster than 55. So the ticketing officer should collect the fine on the spot and be done with it--but police can't collect a fine. What to do--we can't have good Montanans driving slower for fear of having to put a stamp on an envelope and mail in the fine! So the good officer, who cannot collect a fine, instead collected bond money to guarantee that you would show up in court. How much do you think the bond was? $5, by amazing co-incidence. And what do you think happened to it if you forfeited it? Yup. Applied to your fine of $5 (which of course you owed because you did not appear in court and thus were judged guilty by default).

One more problem here--Montanans might think the state was supporting the Feds at least a tiny bit, and that would be a bad thing. So, just to make the point very very clear, we had driver's license test questions like the only one I got wrong--"What is the Montana daytime speed limit?" (We always had a night speed limit, because the last thing a lot of people ever saw was a deer crashing through their windshield.) I put down 55 mph, of course, just like the signs said, and got it wrong. The correct answer was that "Montana has no daytime speed limit." It was a *federal* speed limit, you see. That was a pretty important point for someone to make.

And that's what the feds bought for all that highway-fund arm-twisting: a law that had absolutely no teeth and the feds being a laughingstock. It was a polite and courteous thing to do to carry five dollar bills so that, if some bored cop a hundred miles East of Billings stopped you just to hear the sound of a human voice, you could pay exact change.

Kind of like a toll to drive in the fast lane.

As a postscript, that sort of thing is more necessary when there aren't that many of you. Even back then in Montana we didn't drive as fast as Californians do on the Vegas run, but that works on a different principle: that it's pretty hard to stop a herd that covers the desert from horizon to horizon. Safety in numbers, as it were. In Montana we don't have numbers, and we like to make our symbols of Federalism much more explicit.

Oh, and our legislators aren't evil. That helps a big bunch.

7x57

Palindari
04-07-2009, 10:25 PM
Three cheers for Montana!!! :thumbsup:

mvpatriot
04-07-2009, 10:32 PM
hiphiphoooray!
good stuff on the horizon there

sholling
04-08-2009, 6:30 AM
Efforts to bypass that authority have been heard before by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, the court upheld federal regulation of marijuana in California, even if its use is limited to noncommercial purposes — such as medical reasons — and it is grown and used within a state's borders.If I recall correctly the 10th Amendment was not cited in the California case. My feeling is that the 10th was deliberately not cited because a rediscovery of the 10th Amendment would put a huge number of federal laws such as the Endangered Species Acts etc at risk and the backers of medical marijuana weren't willing to risk that.

nhanson
04-08-2009, 7:12 AM
If this flies.....does it mean FULL AUTO for Montana?

Mulay El Raisuli
04-08-2009, 7:22 AM
And yet, I think this a mistake because it diverts effort from the real fight. Which is to restore the 2A on a federal basis so that it applies everywhere in the land.

The Raisuli

1923mack
04-08-2009, 7:57 AM
Good for Montana. I just wish it was not so darn cold there. I would have a hard time moving the wife to that cold country.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-08-2009, 8:07 AM
I lived there during the federal 55 mph limit. Yeah, we had one in order to get federal highway funds. Wanna know what the feds got for their arm-twisting? The fine was $5, flat, any speed (because if you were going too fast by Montana standards you got a "careless driving" ticket--theoretically it wasn't for your speed but for going too fast for conditions, IIRC). That's good, but the biggest problem is that insurance companies could discourage you from exercising your God-given right to break the sound barrier in your old Chevy pickup by raising your rates. That would, of course, be wrong, so they fixed that loophole by ensuring that speeding tickets didn't go on your record. State Farm can't worry their pretty little heads about what they don't know.

Now, a fine is still a pain because you have to pay it some way, and the point of the $5 fine was to keep a spot at the trough, not actually stop people from driving faster than 55. So the ticketing officer should collect the fine on the spot and be done with it--but police can't collect a fine. What to do--we can't have good Montanans driving slower for fear of having to put a stamp on an envelope and mail in the fine! So the good officer, who cannot collect a fine, instead collected bond money to guarantee that you would show up in court. How much do you think the bond was? $5, by amazing co-incidence. And what do you think happened to it if you forfeited it? Yup. Applied to your fine of $5 (which of course you owed because you did not appear in court and thus were judged guilty by default).

One more problem here--Montanans might think the state was supporting the Feds at least a tiny bit, and that would be a bad thing. So, just to make the point very very clear, we had driver's license test questions like the only one I got wrong--"What is the Montana daytime speed limit?" (We always had a night speed limit, because the last thing a lot of people ever saw was a deer crashing through their windshield.) I put down 55 mph, of course, just like the signs said, and got it wrong. The correct answer was that "Montana has no daytime speed limit." It was a *federal* speed limit, you see. That was a pretty important point for someone to make.

And that's what the feds bought for all that highway-fund arm-twisting: a law that had absolutely no teeth and the feds being a laughingstock. It was a polite and courteous thing to do to carry five dollar bills so that, if some bored cop a hundred miles East of Billings stopped you just to hear the sound of a human voice, you could pay exact change.

Kind of like a toll to drive in the fast lane.

As a postscript, that sort of thing is more necessary when there aren't that many of you. Even back then in Montana we didn't drive as fast as Californians do on the Vegas run, but that works on a different principle: that it's pretty hard to stop a herd that covers the desert from horizon to horizon. Safety in numbers, as it were. In Montana we don't have numbers, and we like to make our symbols of Federalism much more explicit.

Oh, and our legislators aren't evil. That helps a big bunch.

7x57

I recently had the opportunity to drive in Montana but it was over by West Yellowstone, and most of the drive up the mountain was at regulated speeds for good reasons.

In town, the local fuzz were REAL visible with radar. But, again, with good reason, it's mostly a tourist town.

Stormfeather
04-08-2009, 8:10 AM
Now here I am browsing real estate in Montana. . .

SVT_Fox
04-08-2009, 8:19 AM
this makes me warm and fuzzy inside!

zachary2287
04-08-2009, 9:41 AM
I nearly went to school in Montana, even had a dorm room with roommates. But then at the last minute decided to stay here. :banghead:

So does anybody know where the best place to get some good cheap land is up there?

Even if this bill doesn't get signed, Montana is a great state with right thinking people and my wife's already promised that we'll be able to move up there eventually.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-08-2009, 10:44 AM
I nearly went to school in Montana, even had a dorm room with roommates. But then at the last minute decided to stay here. :banghead:

So does anybody know where the best place to get some good cheap land is up there?

Even if this bill doesn't get signed, Montana is a great state with right thinking people and my wife's already promised that we'll be able to move up there eventually.

Land/homes in any of the most scenic or desirable areas is extremely expensive. Out on the cold, flat, windy east end of Montana it drops quickly, though. Of course, you might as well be in South Dakota by then.

7x57
04-08-2009, 11:43 AM
I recently had the opportunity to drive in Montana but it was over by West Yellowstone, and most of the drive up the mountain was at regulated speeds for good reasons.

In town, the local fuzz were REAL visible with radar. But, again, with good reason, it's mostly a tourist town.

Keep in mind that I was speaking most of all about the early '80s, when I lived there and before I went to college. Lots of changes back and forth since then.

7x57

7x57
04-08-2009, 11:52 AM
If this flies.....does it mean FULL AUTO for Montana?

Shh. Let that be our little secret for a generation. Your grandchildren may be in a position to bring it up. ;)

I have no idea who is behind that or what the Right People think, but there was clearly some thought behind it of the kind the Right People have been urging on us. Note that they specified an absolutely clean maker and that the rifles would be single-shot youth training rifles. It avoids all irrational hoplophobia and focuses on the most innocuous of training guns.

You'd have to win a series of stuff like that before even mentioning NFA stuff. Mention it too soon and we lose no matter what the law says, because scared judges don't obey the law.

7x57

KWA-S
04-08-2009, 12:28 PM
Will be interesting to see how this pans out...think any other states will follow suit? (Looking at the gun friendly states that have declared sovereignty)

Joe
04-08-2009, 12:29 PM
thats ballsy

MontClaire
04-08-2009, 12:39 PM
I'd rather live in vegas then montana, honestly....not enough reason to move there.

Tyler
04-08-2009, 4:47 PM
Land/homes in any of the most scenic or desirable areas is extremely expensive. Out on the cold, flat, windy east end of Montana it drops quickly, though. Of course, you might as well be in South Dakota by then.

LAME! Some of us are in South Dakota... jerk :p And yes I have had 3 blizzards in three weeks. All which have happened on the weekends. Spring in South Dakota sucks!

-Tyler

dave1776
04-08-2009, 4:51 PM
Lots of Points to Make.

(1) I've been tracking this for a month or so. They added language to exclude "machine guns" a while back, but it wasn't in the original version. Excluding "machine guns" means those would still be federally regulated.

(2) Here is a Link to the bill as it stands today. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

(3) Here is a link to a comprehensive overview of all the states that are pushing 10th amendment legislation. http://www.infowars.com/resources/states-rights.html

(4) Remember 10th amendment just means the States want to control there own destiny. In CA that would probably mean things would be worse then federal, not better.

(5) Following is a Link to the most important video you will ever watch. 47 minutes. Trust me it is worth your time. This video is so important it was pulled from google video, and you tube numerous times. http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/2F3DE48315C642B2A846A587534159EB/513170/money-as-debt.aspx

This video is Paul Grignon's Money As Debt. Order the DVD, share with your friends.

Kid Stanislaus
04-08-2009, 6:21 PM
I've never understood how "interstate commerce" has been able to justify many things. That's as ridiculous as the 2nd Amendment not being an individual right. I think there needs to be more effort on defending the 10th Amendment.


This is the fraud that FDR pulled back in the 1930's and it still works today. The power of taxation is EXTREMELY strong.

Kid Stanislaus
04-08-2009, 6:27 PM
Good for Montana. I just wish it was not so darn cold there. I would have a hard time moving the wife to that cold country.


Buy her a nice fur coat! Uh, make that a nice MINK coat!!

sholling
04-08-2009, 8:24 PM
This is the fraud that FDR pulled back in the 1930's and it still works today. The power of taxation is EXTREMELY strong.
Most of the time they don't even hide behind taxation. A perfect example is the endangered species act. No interstate commerce or taxation is involved just a desire to set policy from Washington. The same with in-state transfers. There is no interstate commerce involved. The fact that something crossed a state line 20 years ago doesn't mean that interstate commerce is involved now. Labor laws and card-check run into the same barrier. Unfortunately FDR bullied the SCOTUS into shelving the 10th Amendment and Stare decisis (the concept that past unconstitutional SCOTUS rulings may trump the written constitution) is what passes for law today.

Blue
04-08-2009, 8:26 PM
they like their guns in Montana for sure.

but the last time I spent any time there (admittedly many, many years back) the liquor stores were state run or something like it. Closed early, no sales on Sunday, etc.

They did have a liquor store with a drive up window though, so all in all not a bad place to live.

It's like that in Pennsylvania too. I was there last year and wandered around in the 7-11 looking for beer for probably 15 minutes. It was the most confusing 7-11 shopping episode ever. When the clerk finally asked me what I was looking for and I told him, he said "Son, you aren't from around here are you?". But still, I'd rather buy booze from a state store and be able to own guns.

JoeC
04-08-2009, 8:35 PM
How much right does a state have in regards to bucking federal legislation? If an AWB is passed does Montana, or any other state, have the right/ability to tell the federal government to go skrew itself?

What would the feds do if this happened?

Hoop
04-08-2009, 8:40 PM
some very beautiful country.

Yeah, if you can handle the winters.

Loner
04-08-2009, 8:41 PM
I lived there during the federal 55 mph limit. Yeah, we had one in order to get federal highway funds. Wanna know what the feds got for their arm-twisting? The fine was $5, flat, any speed (because if you were going too fast by Montana standards you got a "careless driving" ticket--theoretically it wasn't for your speed but for going too fast for conditions, IIRC). That's good, but the biggest problem is that insurance companies could discourage you from exercising your God-given right to break the sound barrier in your old Chevy pickup by raising your rates. That would, of course, be wrong, so they fixed that loophole by ensuring that speeding tickets didn't go on your record. State Farm can't worry their pretty little heads about what they don't know.

Now, a fine is still a pain because you have to pay it some way, and the point of the $5 fine was to keep a spot at the trough, not actually stop people from driving faster than 55. So the ticketing officer should collect the fine on the spot and be done with it--but police can't collect a fine. What to do--we can't have good Montanans driving slower for fear of having to put a stamp on an envelope and mail in the fine! So the good officer, who cannot collect a fine, instead collected bond money to guarantee that you would show up in court. How much do you think the bond was? $5, by amazing co-incidence. And what do you think happened to it if you forfeited it? Yup. Applied to your fine of $5 (which of course you owed because you did not appear in court and thus were judged guilty by default).

One more problem here--Montanans might think the state was supporting the Feds at least a tiny bit, and that would be a bad thing. So, just to make the point very very clear, we had driver's license test questions like the only one I got wrong--"What is the Montana daytime speed limit?" (We always had a night speed limit, because the last thing a lot of people ever saw was a deer crashing through their windshield.) I put down 55 mph, of course, just like the signs said, and got it wrong. The correct answer was that "Montana has no daytime speed limit." It was a *federal* speed limit, you see. That was a pretty important point for someone to make.

And that's what the feds bought for all that highway-fund arm-twisting: a law that had absolutely no teeth and the feds being a laughingstock. It was a polite and courteous thing to do to carry five dollar bills so that, if some bored cop a hundred miles East of Billings stopped you just to hear the sound of a human voice, you could pay exact change.

Kind of like a toll to drive in the fast lane.

As a postscript, that sort of thing is more necessary when there aren't that many of you. Even back then in Montana we didn't drive as fast as Californians do on the Vegas run, but that works on a different principle: that it's pretty hard to stop a herd that covers the desert from horizon to horizon. Safety in numbers, as it were. In Montana we don't have numbers, and we like to make our symbols of Federalism much more explicit.

Oh, and our legislators aren't evil. That helps a big bunch.

7x57
Sounds like Valhalla.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-09-2009, 6:37 AM
(4) Remember 10th amendment just means the States want to control there own destiny. In CA that would probably mean things would be worse then federal, not better.


Which is part of the reason we here in the PRK shouldn't be cheering this. I understand all the griping about how the Feds have intruded into state's rights & all of that. But the 2A is a FEDERAL law & it is completely appropriate to use Federal power to force the PRK into repealing the nonsensical infringements of the 2A that have been foisted upon us. Having Montana go its own way may be good for Montana, but it's bad for the 2A in general.

The Raisuli

PatriotnMore
04-09-2009, 7:18 AM
Just as the prior POTUS administration had to be taken to the SCOTUS on non combative prisoner rights to a trial. I think Montana is forcing a similar show down with the Feds on States rights, and that is a good thing if ruled favorably. The question is, how will they react if the Feds receive a favorable ruling?

IGOTDIRT4U
04-09-2009, 7:29 AM
Buy her a nice fur coat! Uh, make that a nice MINK coat!!

Mill Valley coats. My wife loves hers!

http://www.millvalleyleather.com/Coat-Length-Only_c_5.html

sholling
04-09-2009, 7:49 AM
Which is part of the reason we here in the PRK shouldn't be cheering this. I understand all the griping about how the Feds have intruded into state's rights & all of that. But the 2A is a FEDERAL law & it is completely appropriate to use Federal power to force the PRK into repealing the nonsensical infringements of the 2A that have been foisted upon us. Having Montana go its own way may be good for Montana, but it's bad for the 2A in general.

The Raisuli
You misunderstand the constitution. The 10th Amendment forbids the federal government from doing much beyond providing for the common defense, and regulating interstate commerce to ensure a free flow of goods and services. The 14th amendment adds one more duty - the responsibility to ensure that the states do not deny their citizens any rights enumerated within the constitution. That means that the Federal courts have the authority under the 14th Amendment to strike down State laws that violate the 2nd Amendment.

dave1776
04-09-2009, 7:31 PM
Montana would not be "going its own way". Montana would be upholding the Constitution. By passing 10th amendment legislation, they are putting the feds on notice. Basically saying "follow the law, the constitution, or you are defaulting on your contract with the state of Montana." Thereby Montana is free from is contractual obligation to the Fed, providing the legal path to succession.


Which is part of the reason we here in the PRK shouldn't be cheering this. I understand all the griping about how the Feds have intruded into state's rights & all of that. But the 2A is a FEDERAL law & it is completely appropriate to use Federal power to force the PRK into repealing the nonsensical infringements of the 2A that have been foisted upon us. Having Montana go its own way may be good for Montana, but it's bad for the 2A in general.

The Raisuli

dave1776
04-09-2009, 7:37 PM
Just as the prior POTUS administration had to be taken to the SCOTUS on non combative prisoner rights to a trial. I think Montana is forcing a similar show down with the Feds on States rights, and that is a good thing if ruled favorably. The question is, how will they react if the Feds receive a favorable ruling?

As previously stated, if the FED refuses to uphold the Constitution, the contract of between Montana and the Fed is defaulted upon, and Montana then has the legal right to succeed.

Its a showdown for States Rights. Look at what happened the last time States said no the FED. Not good, not good at all. The founding fathers knew this day would come, that's why they put the 2A in the Constitution.

TheBundo
04-10-2009, 12:44 AM
Montana would not be "going its own way". Montana would be upholding the Constitution. By passing 10th amendment legislation, they are putting the feds on notice. Basically saying "follow the law, the constitution, or you are defaulting on your contract with the state of Montana." Thereby Montana is free from is contractual obligation to the Fed, providing the legal path to succession.

Secession

As previously stated, if the FED refuses to uphold the Constitution, the contract of between Montana and the Fed is defaulted upon, and Montana then has the legal right to succeed.

Its a showdown for States Rights. Look at what happened the last time States said no the FED. Not good, not good at all. The founding fathers knew this day would come, that's why they put the 2A in the Constitution.

secede

:thumbsup:

Mulay El Raisuli
04-10-2009, 7:30 AM
You misunderstand the constitution. The 10th Amendment forbids the federal government from doing much beyond providing for the common defense, and regulating interstate commerce to ensure a free flow of goods and services. The 14th amendment adds one more duty - the responsibility to ensure that the states do not deny their citizens any rights enumerated within the constitution. That means that the Federal courts have the authority under the 14th Amendment to strike down State laws that violate the 2nd Amendment.


Actually, I DO understand the Constitution. But, I also know how things really are today.

Yes, the 14A does indeed authorize the Fed courts to strike down infringements. But, what's an infringement? If I can buy a black Glock, but not a pink one, have my rights been infringed? From the discussion elsewhere in re Lawrence Tribe, I'm thinking the answer could well be 'no.' The same answer could be given in re OLLs & the like. The argument that 'we can own guns, just not these particular guns' not only will fly in the PRK Supreme Court, it already has! Also, there's no guarantee that SCOTUS won't accept that reasoning as well. The current make-up of SCOTUS may lead you to think they'll shoot down that thinking. But as Tribe points out, they might not.


But you rightly point out that the 10A regulates the free flow of goods & commerce. And here is where the roll-back of the ridiculous rules of the PRK can, & IMHO, should be attacked. For there the argument isn't that our Rights are being violated, but the rights of Glock that are being violated. For here the argument is legally identical to the argument that just as no state can bar the selling of Wisconsin cheese (a product sold everywhere else in the country with no problems) just because they don't like Wisconsin, no state could bar the selling of pink Glocks (also a product sold everywhere else in the country with no problems).

Look also at the history of DC vs Heller. Do you know why its so named & not "DC vs Parker, et al"? Its because Gura, bright as he is, very nearly screwed the pooch. Adding the rejection slip that Mr. Heller got in response to his application for a handgun permit was a last-minute thing. Something not thought important. Added just because it might be useful. That rejection, as it turned out, was THE thing that got us a hearing at all. Because that was the one thing that gave any of the six "standing" in the court. Predicting just what any court is going to find important is always a chancy business. So, I advocate an attack via the 10A because its another arrow in our quiver. If SCOTUS leaves the ban on pink pistols because we can still buy black ones, even though that's just about as dumb as dumb can be (after all, PRK Supreme Court did just that), then an attack on the ban because it violates the rights of Glock to sell us such a pistol would be the only way left to attack the ban.

It isn't, of course, limited to cheese or pink Glocks. Apply the same line of thinking to whomever makes evil black rifles. Colt is allowed to sell evil black rifles here, but <insert name here> can't? Taurus can sell some of their revolvers here, but not something sold in the other 49 states with out problems? Etc., etc., etc.

NONE of this makes any real kind of sense, & ALL of it would be struck down by the proper application of the 10A & the Commerce Clause. The PRK then would be just like the rest of the USA when it came to what we could buy & shoot.

As for the idea of 'going one's own way,' secession is (IMHO) just massively insane. Montana can't stand on its own on the world stage & losing it would hurt the USA as well. And lets not forget that the last time anyone tried that it DID go badly. For ALL concerned.

The Raisuli

sholling
04-10-2009, 8:32 AM
Actually, I DO understand the Constitution. But, I also know how things really are today.

Yes, the 14A does indeed authorize the Fed courts to strike down infringements. But, what's an infringement? If I can buy a black Glock, but not a pink one, have my rights been infringed? From the discussion elsewhere in re Lawrence Tribe, I'm thinking the answer could well be 'no.' The same answer could be given in re OLLs & the like. The argument that 'we can own guns, just not these particular guns' not only will fly in the PRK Supreme Court, it already has! Also, there's no guarantee that SCOTUS won't accept that reasoning as well. The current make-up of SCOTUS may lead you to think they'll shoot down that thinking. But as Tribe points out, they might not.
This has been a result of the SCOTUS ignoring the 2nd Amendment (and the 10th) as long as they have. As it is 4 of the 9 were able to convince themselves that the 2nd is an obsolete amendment and tortured the heck out of US history to justify conclusions driven solely by their own personal politics. This is a big chunk of why the framers included the 2nd Amendment. For the day that Congress and the executive branch co opted the SCOTUS into going along with blatantly unconstitutional laws and actions. Something that's been happening since the 1930s. This is a big reason for my belief that the SCOTUS must be made subservient to the intent and written word of the framers and that won't happen until the concept of "stare decisis" takes it's place alongside "separate but equal" in the dustbin of judicial abuses.

Because that was the one thing that gave any of the six "standing" in the court.
This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. The absolute arrogance and conceit of any court telling the owners (any citizen) of this country that they don't have the right to challenge the constitutionality of any law should be grounds for removing them from the bench followed by tarring and feathering in the town square.

It isn't, of course, limited to cheese or pink Glocks. Apply the same line of thinking to whomever makes evil black rifles. Colt is allowed to sell evil black rifles here, but <insert name here> can't? Taurus can sell some of their revolvers here, but not something sold in the other 49 states with out problems? Etc., etc., etc.
Once the 2nd Amendment is applied to the states this nonsense will fall to a proper application of the 14th amendment due to the existence of an exempted class. Of course liberal judges often completely ignore the law and base rulings on their own personal political beliefs so a few appeals may be necessary. The important thing is that for the first time the right of the people to keep and bear arms has been reaffirmed. A right previously denied by the 9th circus.

As for the idea of 'going one's own way,' secession is (IMHO) just massively insane. Montana can't stand on its own on the world stage & losing it would hurt the USA as well. And lets not forget that the last time anyone tried that it DID go badly. For ALL concerned.
You forget the Clinton doctrine as applied to the former Yugoslavia and break-away regions of Russia. That a people have a right to break away from any nation and form their own. The reality is that times have changed since 1860 (and after Kent State) and while those in power might not like it - the US military will never again open fire on Americans. It would come down to federal officers doing battle with citizens and possibly national guard units. Second, if or when a secession movement gets rolling it won't just be Montana. It would be somewhere between 10 and 40 states that could easily stand as a group. But let's all hope that it never gets to that. Let's all hope that the federal government, the courts, and Dear Leader come to their senses and stop inflaming the people.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-11-2009, 6:34 AM
This has been a result of the SCOTUS ignoring the 2nd Amendment (and the 10th) as long as they have. As it is 4 of the 9 were able to convince themselves that the 2nd is an obsolete amendment and tortured the heck out of US history to justify conclusions driven solely by their own personal politics. This is a big chunk of why the framers included the 2nd Amendment. For the day that Congress and the executive branch co opted the SCOTUS into going along with blatantly unconstitutional laws and actions. Something that's been happening since the 1930s. This is a big reason for my belief that the SCOTUS must be made subservient to the intent and written word of the framers and that won't happen until the concept of "stare decisis" takes it's place alongside "separate but equal" in the dustbin of judicial abuses.


Actually, "stare decisis" is good law. It basically means that no no court can change the law on a mere whim. Not even SCOTUS. They do have the power to do so, but being a great power, it's exercised rarely & only for very good reasons. It'll be what keeps HELLER as law, for instance, even if Obama manages to pack the Court. Also, if the principle had been followed back in the 30s, we wouldn't have the nonsense we have now.


This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. The absolute arrogance and conceit of any court telling the owners (any citizen) of this country that they don't have the right to challenge the constitutionality of any law should be grounds for removing them from the bench followed by tarring and feathering in the town square.


I agree. But that's not the way things are, & adapting oneself to the legal reality is the way to go.



Once the 2nd Amendment is applied to the states this nonsense will fall to a proper application of the 14th amendment due to the existence of an exempted class. Of course liberal judges often completely ignore the law and base rulings on their own personal political beliefs so a few appeals may be necessary. The important thing is that for the first time the right of the people to keep and bear arms has been reaffirmed. A right previously denied by the 9th circus.


Still, a Ruling that the Right isn't infringed because we can buy some, but not every, pistol we like could come down. Such a Ruling might not be seen as an infringement of our Rights. But, such a Ruling couldn't (well, not rationally) stand up to 10A scrutiny. Hence my call that a 10A attack be mounted.

Is "9th circus" a typo or an insult? If an insult, well done!



You forget the Clinton doctrine as applied to the former Yugoslavia and break-away regions of Russia. That a people have a right to break away from any nation and form their own. The reality is that times have changed since 1860 (and after Kent State) and while those in power might not like it - the US military will never again open fire on Americans. It would come down to federal officers doing battle with citizens and possibly national guard units. Second, if or when a secession movement gets rolling it won't just be Montana. It would be somewhere between 10 and 40 states that could easily stand as a group. But let's all hope that it never gets to that. Let's all hope that the federal government, the courts, and Dear Leader come to their senses and stop inflaming the people.


I'm pretty sure the "Clinton Doctrine" applied to bad countries & not our country. Even with that though, there's no doubting that helping Yugoslavia break up did nothing for Yugoslavia. Allowing the USA to break up won't do anything for us either.

The Raisuli

sholling
04-11-2009, 7:15 AM
Actually, "stare decisis" is good law.
Unfortunately the court spends too much time examining what past courts have decided and too little gathering a deep understanding of what the framers intended for each clause. What it leaves us with is thousands of blatantly unconstitutional laws littering the books by a court system more interested maintaining the illusion that it's thought are holy writ than enforcing the written word of the constitution. That leaves us with a congress and an executive branch running amok with no one to challenge federal control of everything because the 10th Amendment has been gutted by past courts.

I agree. But that's not the way things are, & adapting oneself to the legal reality is the way to go.All I can say to that is thank god that the founding fathers didn't feel that way. If they had we'd still be singing 'god save the queen'. ;)

Is "9th circus" a typo or an insult? If an insult, well done!
No typo. I've used that description for decades.

I'm pretty sure the "Clinton Doctrine" applied to bad countries & not our country. Even with that though, there's no doubting that helping Yugoslavia break up did nothing for Yugoslavia. Allowing the USA to break up won't do anything for us either.I'm not advocating secession or or revolution - I love my country. I just think that Washington is backing the people into a corner and that there is a good 40% chance that one or more states will formally move to seceded in the next ten years if Washington doesn't cool it. I'm also providing recent legal and policy precedent. Beyond a return to freedom the other upside for those living in a newly formed nation will be the knowledge that those living in the remaining 10-40 states will be left holding the bag for the entire 11 trillion and growing US national debt while the break-aways start fresh. ;)

Mulay El Raisuli
04-12-2009, 12:04 PM
Unfortunately the court spends too much time examining what past courts have decided and too little gathering a deep understanding of what the framers intended for each clause. What it leaves us with is thousands of blatantly unconstitutional laws littering the books by a court system more interested maintaining the illusion that it's thought are holy writ than enforcing the written word of the constitution. That leaves us with a congress and an executive branch running amok with no one to challenge federal control of everything because the 10th Amendment has been gutted by past courts.


Precedent, & it's companion, stare decisis, are the bedrock of the law. What you're complaining about (justly) is how it's implemented. The problem then is not with the principles involved, but how judges are straying from applying the principles.


All I can say to that is thank god that the founding fathers didn't feel that way. If they had we'd still be singing 'god save the queen'. ;)


Well, I did say "very good reasons," didn't I?



No typo. I've used that description for decades.


Then I am decades behind in congratulating you.


I'm not advocating secession or or revolution - I love my country. I just think that Washington is backing the people into a corner and that there is a good 40% chance that one or more states will formally move to seceded in the next ten years if Washington doesn't cool it. I'm also providing recent legal and policy precedent. Beyond a return to freedom the other upside for those living in a newly formed nation will be the knowledge that those living in the remaining 10-40 states will be left holding the bag for the entire 11 trillion and growing US national debt while the break-aways start fresh. ;)


Maybe. But while a return to freedom is nice, one that brings the rest of us along is even better. Keeping that 40% with us as we push out the non-freedom types would make the whole country better. It would also return this country to being the 'light on the hill' to the rest of the world. Like we used to be.

The Raisuli