PDA

View Full Version : Montana Gov. signs pro gun bill


bruceflinch
05-02-2009, 7:38 AM
ATA BOY MONTANA !


Text of the enrolled bill here: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/BillPDF/HB246.pdf



From: Neutral
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:59 PM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: Montana Governor Signs


http://www.panamalaw.org/montana_governor_signs_new_gun_law.html


Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law
Executive Summary – The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY. The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana. The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal – confiscation of privately owned firearms.

Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Important Points – If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.

Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.

Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back.

Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.

There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana.

Discussion – Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA. The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same with the USA. Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not.

Text of the New Law
HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON

AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".

Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees 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.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights 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.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right 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.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:

(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

bruceflinch
05-02-2009, 7:39 AM
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].

Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October

dustoff31
05-02-2009, 7:45 AM
Cool. I head something mentioned on the news yesterday that Texas was working on similar legislation.

halifax
05-02-2009, 7:57 AM
There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana.

Hyperbole maybe?

Still way cool :cool:

RomanDad
05-02-2009, 8:04 AM
And remember.... When people are worrying about new federal gun legislation, Montana has TWO Democrat Senators..... How do you think THEY'LL vote if they want to keep their seats?

bruceflinch
05-02-2009, 8:13 AM
And remember.... When people are worrying about new federal gun legislation, Montana has TWO Democrat Senators..... How do you think THEY'LL vote if they want to keep their seats?

See? Not all Democrats are bad...:)

7x57
05-02-2009, 8:30 AM
See? Not all Democrats are bad...:)

Well, the proof in this case is limited to "there exist at least two Democrats who want to be re-elected, have their neighbors still speak to them, and so on." They might still be bad--but they know who has the whip hand on gun issues in Montana. :43:

Which is actually more important in terms of the design of the country than whether they are bad or not.

7x57

Timberline
05-02-2009, 8:49 AM
MT Governor Schweitzer is a Democrat. The sky is not falling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer

RomanDad
05-02-2009, 9:02 AM
See? Not all Democrats are bad...:)

Nope.... And not all Republicans are good.... (trust me- In the last two weeks I have bumped heads on two separate occasions with high ranking PRO GUN CONTROL Republicans) Unfortunately, the LEADERSHIP of the Democratic Party and the PLATFORM of the Democratic Party are so far afield from these "good Democrats" that they get painted with the same broad swath when they put the (D) next to their name.

The party has been co-opted by the far left socialists who's calls for gun control, and big government drown out the voices of the more traditional mid-west and blue-dog Democrats who are still voting for the party of JFK, even though the values of JFK long ago left the party leadership and platform.

yellowfin
05-02-2009, 9:15 AM
I wonder if New Hampshire will be next.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-02-2009, 9:23 AM
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.




I couldn't get the .pdf to d/l correctly, so I ask: Do I read these two right? Could they have meant a bore of 1/2 inch instead of 1 1/2 inch? A bore of 1 1/2 inches is a pretty big gun!

Also, a shotgun discharges 2 or more projectiles. I'm guessing they wanted to keep machineguns illegal, but (if copied correctly) the wording used is a bit off.

The Raisuli

H Paul Payne
05-02-2009, 9:25 AM
ATA BOY MONTANA !

<<< SNIP >>>

NO!!! NO!!! NO!!! MONTANA IS BAD!!! :p

Note: Those of us who have homes in Montana do not want any more Californians moving to Montana. ;)

See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2047021&postcount=11 for more info. And I do have pictures......

<< I hope everyone realizes that I'm just joking here. >>

Paul

Hoop
05-02-2009, 9:37 AM
Montana could go to voting for secession from the union

I highly doubt that. More than likely the Fed will tell them they can't do (their firearm thing) and try to strongarm them over highway or stimulus funds etc.

RandyD
05-02-2009, 9:40 AM
In reading the U.S. Constitution, it provides for the creation of a small and limited Federal Government whose purpose was to unify the states, not control them at every level. We need to return to that form of government.

bulgron
05-02-2009, 10:16 AM
In reading the U.S. Constitution, it provides for the creation of a small and limited Federal Government whose purpose was to unify the states, not control them at every level. We need to return to that form of government.

We lost that government when a little thing called the civil war happened. That war did more than just end slavery in this country.

bulgron
05-02-2009, 10:17 AM
I highly doubt that. More than likely the Fed will tell them they can't do (their firearm thing) and try to strongarm them over highway or stimulus funds etc.

Yeah, I think the Federal Highway dollars billy club is about to come out. One of these days, the feds are going to do that to some state, and they're going to say, "Fine. Then we're keeping our federal tax dollars here in our state until you guys stop acting in an unconstitutional manner."

yellowfin
05-02-2009, 10:24 AM
Just how attached do you think the fed is to collecting tax stamps and SOT in Montana? Is it really worth the effort?

Hopi
05-02-2009, 10:52 AM
Yeah, I think the Federal Highway dollars billy club is about to come out. One of these days, the feds are going to do that to some state, and they're going to say, "Fine. Then we're keeping our federal tax dollars here in our state until you guys stop acting in an unconstitutional manner."

:popcorn:

spyderco monkey
05-02-2009, 11:10 AM
This is way cool.

That being said, this legislation will most likley run across the same issues as medical marijuana did in CA. CA argued that it was not "interstate commerce," b/c it was just sold in CA, and the Fed argued that weed is such a compelling product that it would inevitably cross state lines.

I wish Montana the best, but without a way of preventing the guns/accessories from leaving the state, I fear that it will be defeated as the toys will no doubt grow legs; afterall, who isn't a James Bond fan?

Legasat
05-02-2009, 11:24 AM
What a GREAT thread!!!

See? Not all Democrats are bad...:)

I have never said or even thought, all Dems are bad. Just Über liberals who want to "reinterpret" the Constitution to fit their definitions.

In reading the U.S. Constitution, it provides for the creation of a small and limited Federal Government whose purpose was to unify the states, not control them at every level. We need to return to that form of government.

This quote is Dead ON!!!

Yeah, I think the Federal Highway dollars billy club is about to come out. One of these days, the feds are going to do that to some state, and they're going to say, "Fine. Then we're keeping our federal tax dollars here in our state until you guys stop acting in an unconstitutional manner."

Another Great Idea!



(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees 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.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights 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.

Here are two concepts that the Federal Gov't has forgotten or abandoned. We need to remind of these. These are KEY to our Freedoms!!

Again...GREAT THREAD!!!

yellowfin
05-02-2009, 11:30 AM
Pretty simple to do, really. Just engrave the Montana only firearms and cans as "For use in Montana Only" and if they see them outside there then it's a crime. That's a lot more clear cut than looking for tax stamps on cigarettes.

Nodda Duma
05-02-2009, 11:40 AM
NO!!! NO!!! NO!!! MONTANA IS BAD!!! :p

Note: Those of us who have homes in Montana do not want any more Californians moving to Montana. ;)

See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2047021&postcount=11 for more info. And I do have pictures......

<< I hope everyone realizes that I'm just joking here. >>

Paul

If Montana had any work for an optical engineer I'd move there in a heartbeat :P

-Jason

scratch
05-02-2009, 11:41 AM
I highly doubt that. More than likely the Fed will tell them they can't do (their firearm thing) and try to strongarm them over highway or stimulus funds etc.

My .02..I'm sure there was some thought put into this just like any good planner. Montana has a wealth of resources they provide to the nation. Seems like they may have some chips in this action.

This action reminds me of the fiction novel Molon Labe by Boston T. Party and the Free Wyoming Project. Looks like Montana beat them to the punch, however I hope Wyoming and Idaho are close behind. Brings some sanity back to the West.

sgtlmj
05-02-2009, 12:31 PM
This is way cool.

That being said, this legislation will most likley run across the same issues as medical marijuana did in CA. CA argued that it was not "interstate commerce," b/c it was just sold in CA, and the Fed argued that weed is such a compelling product that it would inevitably cross state lines.



I think the clincher was that MJ couldn't be positively ID'ed as having been grown exclusively in CA. A firearm can be stamped and serialized proving where it was manufactured.

rabagley
05-02-2009, 3:21 PM
Actually, the two Montana Democrat senators were the first to stand up and tell Holder to pound sand re: discussion of renewing the AWB.

Those two Dems aren't just "looking for re-election", they're NRA "A" rated allies of RKBA.

CnCFunFactory
05-02-2009, 3:27 PM
See? Not all Democrats are bad...:)

Bite your tongue sir. :43:

Aegis
05-02-2009, 3:28 PM
We have a Republican Governor and a Democrat for Attorney General and neither one will do the right thing and abolish the unconstitutional gun laws in California.

7x57
05-02-2009, 3:30 PM
I think the clincher was that MJ couldn't be positively ID'ed as having been grown exclusively in CA. A firearm can be stamped and serialized proving where it was manufactured.

Actually, if that were really an issue it could be--a little isotopic doping would do it, and it's possible that there are enough natural tags that intentional doping isn't even necessary. Plants often have a very clear signature about place of origin--for example, we've dug up thousand-year old viking ships in Denmark that we know from an analysis of the wood were built in Ireland. But if that doesn't happen to be true of marijuana from some particular region, you can always dope it artificially.

But of course that was never the issue, just a pretext for extending Federal power, and thus is irrelevant. It was never ever about facts or commerce, it was about raw power.

7x57

7x57
05-02-2009, 3:33 PM
Those two Dems aren't just "looking for re-election", they're NRA "A" rated allies of RKBA.

While it may be true that they aren't "just looking for -re-election," that conclusion does not follow from an NRA A-rating. Why in the world would you think it does? The NRA rates on results. That rating doesn't measure belief, and it neither can nor should. It measures results, however obtained and for whatever reason. If one wants to be re-elected in a pro-gun state, one votes in such a way as to get an A-rating.

7x57

tombinghamthegreat
05-02-2009, 4:06 PM
Hey is there any news stations covering this?

Maestro Pistolero
05-02-2009, 5:12 PM
Duplicate post-Mods please delete

Maestro Pistolero
05-02-2009, 5:13 PM
I SUSPECT THAT WOULD EVEN SURVIVE SCRUTINY UNDER THE DEFUNCT COLLECTIVE RIGHTS THEORY, BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY COMING FROM THE STATE ITSELF!

JDay
05-02-2009, 5:33 PM
I SUSPECT THAT WOULD EVEN SURVIVE SCRUTINY UNDER THE DEFUNCT COLLECTIVE RIGHTS THEORY, BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY COMING FROM THE STATE ITSELF!

Why are you yelling?

pullnshoot25
05-02-2009, 5:43 PM
Actually, if that were really an issue it could be--a little isotopic doping would do it, and it's possible that there are enough natural tags that intentional doping isn't even necessary. Plants often have a very clear signature about place of origin--for example, we've dug up thousand-year old viking ships in Denmark that we know from an analysis of the wood were built in Ireland. But if that doesn't happen to be true of marijuana from some particular region, you can always dope it artificially.

But of course that was never the issue, just a pretext for extending Federal power, and thus is irrelevant. It was never ever about facts or commerce, it was about raw power.

7x57

You would have to get some seriously nerdy drug dealers... that would be pretty cool.

7x57
05-02-2009, 5:49 PM
You would have to get some seriously nerdy drug dealers... that would be pretty cool.

If that were the key to getting legal dope in CA, I bet at least a thousand people with some appropriate bachelor degree would come out of the woodwork. :chris:

For that matter, Berzerkley would probably create a major in "CA-legal hemp" and provide free technical assistance and signature verification. Dope is just the sort of thing *California* would regard as an appropriate agricultural extension project. :eek:

I hope the amused sarcasm dripping from my fingertips as I type this is evident on-screen. :rolleyes:

7x57

rambo
05-02-2009, 5:49 PM
hey does any one see this as i do? I think they are basicly calling obama out in the street for a duel? and do you think that montana texas and whoever else joins this cause will be prepared to back it up or just comply when time?

Maestro Pistolero
05-02-2009, 5:52 PM
Why are you yelling?

No reason, caps lock happened to be on, it was a short post. But thank you, mister hall monitor, sir.

Mssr. Eleganté
05-02-2009, 6:18 PM
So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana.

You do realize that the State of Montana has about the same population as San Jose, California? And they probably have 1/100th of the industrial capacity. If every single household in Montana bought three new "made in Montana" firearms then they could reach 1 million untraceable firearms. But it would likely take them several decades to manufacture that many. And they would need money to buy these new guns. Federal spending and consumer spending are almost equal in Montana. They rely heavily on Federal money in Montana.

BroncoBob
05-02-2009, 6:48 PM
Only to think how nice it would be if California would do something like this....... Only a dream.

Timberline
05-02-2009, 7:14 PM
Duplicate post-Mods please delete

You can delete your own posts - really. Click the "Edit/Delete" button on your post, and there's an option to delete it.

pullnshoot25
05-02-2009, 7:15 PM
If that were the key to getting legal dope in CA, I bet at least a thousand people with some appropriate bachelor degree would come out of the woodwork. :chris:

For that matter, Berzerkley would probably create a major in "CA-legal hemp" and provide free technical assistance and signature verification. Dope is just the sort of thing *California* would regard as an appropriate agricultural extension project. :eek:

I hope the amused sarcasm dripping from my fingertips as I type this is evident on-screen. :rolleyes:

7x57

Oh yeah, I can freaking smell it from here.

Kid Stanislaus
05-02-2009, 8:11 PM
Note: Those of us who have homes in Montana do not want any more Californians moving to Montana. ;) Paul


Too bad, Paul. I've gotta get out of this cesspool and go SOMEWHERE and Montana all of a sudden is look'n real good. I might not think that in January (BRRRRRRRRR!) but in the spring of the year Montana looks like heaven to me!:43:

7x57
05-02-2009, 8:24 PM
Oh yeah, I can freaking smell it from here.

The sarcasm or the weed? ;)

7x57

Roadrunner
05-02-2009, 10:14 PM
Too bad, Paul. I've gotta get out of this cesspool and go SOMEWHERE and Montana all of a sudden is look'n real good. I might not think that in January (BRRRRRRRRR!) but in the spring of the year Montana looks like heaven to me!:43:

C'mon Kid, it's not as bad here as it is in Urbania.

Dark&Good
05-02-2009, 10:39 PM
Good job, Montana :thumbsup:

vrand
05-02-2009, 11:17 PM
Actually, if that were really an issue it could be--a little isotopic doping would do it, and it's possible that there are enough natural tags that intentional doping isn't even necessary. Plants often have a very clear signature about place of origin--for example, we've dug up thousand-year old viking ships in Denmark that we know from an analysis of the wood were built in Ireland. But if that doesn't happen to be true of marijuana from some particular region, you can always dope it artificially.

But of course that was never the issue, just a pretext for extending Federal power, and thus is irrelevant. It was never ever about facts or commerce, it was about raw power.
7x57

yep

nick
05-03-2009, 3:04 PM
I think the clincher was that MJ couldn't be positively ID'ed as having been grown exclusively in CA. A firearm can be stamped and serialized proving where it was manufactured.

It was still a ludicrous and intellectually dishonest argument to begin with. "Because I can't prove that you're innocent I'll forbid youto do it". But then, I've long since stopped trying to find anything but dishonesty in our courts.