PDA

View Full Version : Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law


Solidmch
05-05-2009, 11:03 PM
Not much in the press about this. How much of this is true?


Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law

Ernest Hancock <Date: 05-03-2009" href="http://www.ernesthancock.com/%3EDate:%2005-03-2009"http://www.ernesthancock.com/>
Date: 05-03-2009
Subject: Gun Rights <http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Standard-Page.htm?EdNo=001&Page=00050&PHPSESSID=64f57202f16817f7baaaf5e68906b0fe>


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.

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.

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 1, 2009.

gunsmith
05-05-2009, 11:22 PM
"I might be moving to Montana soon"
Frank Zappa.

pat038536
05-05-2009, 11:25 PM
Wow! If this is true and correct.. Who is moving ?

deebix
05-05-2009, 11:34 PM
Me, after college. I would rather be dirt poor in freedom than well off here in california.

JDoe
05-06-2009, 12:37 AM
Not much in the press about this. How much of this is true?

Looks like the Governor of Montana signed it (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=&P_BILL_NO=&P_BILL_DFT_NO=LC0671&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=#sed_table).

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

:popcorn:

MKE
05-06-2009, 12:43 AM
Wow...these folks have 'nads of steel. Wonder what other states will follow Montana's lead.

Ground Loop
05-06-2009, 12:47 AM
Texas, AK, and apparently Arkansas also have similar laws in the works.

shirow
05-06-2009, 12:54 AM
Add Utah to the mix:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553

bluestaterebel
05-06-2009, 2:53 AM
mass exodus

Soldier415
05-06-2009, 3:41 AM
Time to start looking at houeses in Montana...

CalNRA
05-06-2009, 6:04 AM
Montana: the state that is Chuck Norris.

:D

My GF is lobbying me to move there.

audi2539
05-06-2009, 6:09 AM
Awesome showdown is coming soon...... get popcorn.

Chuck Norris aka Montana vs. Obama aka Big Swine Gov't out of control.

Nodda Duma
05-06-2009, 7:36 AM
ah geez. My home state of Arkansas is working on something similar? I wish there was work for me back home. :(

-Jason

1923mack
05-06-2009, 7:42 AM
Go Utah. Montana is nice but kinda far away. Utah is mush closer to us Califorinians.

Solidmch
05-06-2009, 7:57 AM
Go Utah. Montana is nice but kinda far away. Utah is mush closer to us Califorinians.

I have family on Utah.

fairfaxjim
05-06-2009, 8:22 AM
Reminds me of an old Frank Zappa song - "Movin' to Montana"

Way to go Big Sky Country (hey, that may be the new country name if they secede)

shooting4life
05-06-2009, 8:27 AM
I wish I was closer to retirement.

fairfaxjim
05-06-2009, 8:36 AM
I wish I was closer to retirement.

Been there in the winter lately? Lots of cool things to do there though. I wish I was retired so I could live there and "visit" here.

Suvorov
05-06-2009, 8:39 AM
You guys really think the US Government would just let them secede?

ilbob
05-06-2009, 8:45 AM
You guys really think the US Government would just let them secede?

Its not so much about secession as assertion.

States have had many of their rights and powers abrogated over the years by the federal government. This is a tiny step at asserting those rights and powers. Hopefully more states will step up to the plate.

If no one challanges the feds, it will only get worse.

Suvorov
05-06-2009, 8:55 AM
Its not so much about secession as assertion.

States have had many of their rights and powers abrogated over the years by the federal government. This is a tiny step at asserting those rights and powers. Hopefully more states will step up to the plate.

If no one challanges the feds, it will only get worse.


Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% behind Montana and what it is doing (it really isn't that different from what Kalifornia has done with Marijuana, only pot is mostly being championed by the left while guns are mostly from the right). Hopefully enough states will step up to the plate and check the power of the Fed before things get too bad (if it isn't already too late).

I just fear that the Constitution is something that is only followed by the Feds (or our own state) when it is convenient for them.

I'll echo the sentiments of others in saying I wonder why the press has not been saying much about it (or the original shot across the bow pre-Heller)? Is it simply bad journalism or is it complaisance? :TFH:

Sarkoon
05-06-2009, 9:30 AM
I don't understand why the bill Montana just passed specifically excludes fully automatic weapons. If they want to re-assert their rights, why specifically grant the federal government the authority to regulate *some* weapons manufactured, purchased, and used entirely within the state, but not others?

MrNiceGuy
05-06-2009, 9:31 AM
Kudos to Montana for standing up for what they believe in, after all, that's the American way.
But thinking about splitting off from the Union is a little extreme, since it's the Union that makes us strong as a whole in the grander scheme of things.
We take the good with the bad to be one Nation, united we stand, divided we fall.

dfletcher
05-06-2009, 9:47 AM
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% behind Montana and what it is doing (it really isn't that different from what Kalifornia has done with Marijuana, only pot is mostly being championed by the left while guns are mostly from the right). :TFH:

I had that thought initially, but MJ doesn't have the SCOTUS stamp of approval as a right. So while MJ has the state stamp of approval in CA, it does not federally.

7x57
05-06-2009, 9:51 AM
I don't understand why the bill Montana just passed specifically excludes fully automatic weapons.

Same reason we aren't in court asserting the 2A about them. We'd lose. They'd lose. If you scare judges, they don't care about the law, and thanks to non-stop propaganda full auto weapons are like the Living Dead to most judges. The point is to establish the principle in the simplest, cleanest, most non-threatening case possible. Notice how the first affirmation we got from SCOTUS about the 2A was because the Heller case was extremely limited and squeaky clean. They didn't challenge DC's registration, they didn't challenge DC's carry ban, they didn't challenge the ban on wierd weapons. They challenged the ban on having the most standard possible weapon, a handgun, operable in the home.

Every time we've broken that rule of step-by-step gradualism, we've lost and set a precedent that haunted us for decades.

7x57

7x57
05-06-2009, 9:52 AM
I had that thought initially, but MJ doesn't have the SCOTUS stamp of approval as a right. So while MJ has the stamp of approval in CA, it does not federally - while federally guns do have the OK.

MJ doesn't have a very clear "made in Montana" label on it either.

7x57

Flopper
05-06-2009, 9:59 AM
I'll echo the sentiments of others in saying I wonder why the press has not been saying much about it (or the original shot across the bow pre-Heller)? Is it simply bad journalism or is it complaisance? :TFH:

amazingly, the san jose mercury news did run an article on (i think) page 2A last thursday: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12263509?nclick_check=1

dfletcher
05-06-2009, 10:06 AM
Regarding interstate commerce.

For the sake of discussion, let's say I manufacture ammunition with the intent of having it sold in Montana only. Let's say I manufacture ALOT of ammunition with the intent of having it sold in Montana only. I'll even mark it "For Sale in Montana Only".

Am I required to limit sales to Montana residents only? If it can be proved that a Montana resident bought MY ammo instead of ordering from Midway have I affected interstate commerce? If I sell to an out of state resident have I affected interstate commerce?

If my "Montana Only" ammo finds its way out of state am I interfering interstate commerce?

I don't know if it's a myth, but I've read that a farmer in the '30s was charged with interfering with interstate commerce because he DIDN'T grow corn - which according to the Roosevelt Administration resulted in higher corn prices in other states.

Just how creative can the federal government get with respect to a violating interstate commerce charge?

7x57
05-06-2009, 10:16 AM
Just how creative can the federal government get with respect to a violating interstate commerce charge?

According to the courts, the commerce clause is a magic wish-granting genie with unlimited super-powers. :eek:

Not really kidding. :mad:

7x57

12voltguy
05-06-2009, 10:22 AM
Regarding interstate commerce.

For the sake of discussion, let's say I manufacture ammunition with the intent of having it sold in Montana only. Let's say I manufacture ALOT of ammunition with the intent of having it sold in Montana only. I'll even mark it "For Sale in Montana Only".

Am I required to limit sales to Montana residents only? If it can be proved that a Montana resident bought MY ammo instead of ordering from Midway have I affected interstate commerce? If I sell to an out of state resident have I affected interstate commerce?

If my "Montana Only" ammo finds its way out of state am I interfering interstate commerce?

I don't know if it's a myth, but I've read that a farmer in the '30s was charged with interfering with interstate commerce because he DIDN'T grow corn - which according to the Roosevelt Administration resulted in higher corn prices in other states.

Just how creative can the federal government get with respect to a violating interstate commerce charge?

might be a great sample
the GOv now pays some farmers to "NOT GROW CORN" I can't remember why, but it may be pretty easy to look up....I might just do that.
I guess a comedian caught wind of this & worked it into a joke, saying he gets up at the crack of noon to "NOT GROW CORN":p

Suvorov
05-06-2009, 11:48 AM
I had that thought initially, but MJ doesn't have the SCOTUS stamp of approval as a right. So while MJ has the state stamp of approval in CA, it does not federally.


I'm 100% against use of drugs like pot personally, but unless the control of such a substance is one of the Federal Government's enumerated powers (which I don't believe it is - though I could be wrong), then it is up to the individual State to control. If the PRK can go and ignore Federal drug and immigration laws, why can't Montana do the same with firearms laws?

Model X
05-06-2009, 12:37 PM
I don't know if it's a myth, but I've read that a farmer in the '30s was charged with interfering with interstate commerce because he DIDN'T grow corn - which according to the Roosevelt Administration resulted in higher corn prices in other states.

I am not familiar with this, but given the FDR style, he was probably charged with interfering with interstate commerce FOR growing corn because it would result in lower corn prices in other states, which would hurt the farmers who did grow it.

Government subsidizes people to not grow crops in order to keep the price of food higher so farmers can make more money.

bohoki
05-06-2009, 1:26 PM
so if one were to manufacture ammo for use in montana only the people of montana would buy that ammo and impact the sale of ammo imported into that state

but since anything can affect interstate commerce if you go deep enough what is the point of the clause limitations

vrand
05-06-2009, 1:43 PM
Its not so much about secession as assertion.

States have had many of their rights and powers abrogated over the years by the federal government. This is a tiny step at asserting those rights and powers. Hopefully more states will step up to the plate.

If no one challanges the feds, it will only get worse.

"Unless restrained, all governments devolve to tyranny."

pat038536
05-06-2009, 3:36 PM
Tenn. is also trying to pass a similar law.

garandguy10
05-06-2009, 4:24 PM
Ok Montana it is, some questions though,
#1 What is the employment like in Montana and what types of industry does Montana have?

#2 What are the home prices like in Montana and were are the bigger cities?

#3 What are the women like in Montana and and what is the male/female ratio?

#4 Does Montana have a state sales tax?

#4 Does Montana have a state income tax?

HotRails
05-06-2009, 5:07 PM
Didn't Gonzalas v. Raich establish that the Fed could pretty much trump the states in matters of IC?

M. Sage
05-06-2009, 5:20 PM
Didn't Gonzalas v. Raich establish that the Fed could pretty much trump the states in matters of IC?

Sort of. Here's the kicker on these laws: they're a hedge against new bans. If a federal law would preempt an existing state law (or if a state law would preempt an existing local law), the law that was in place first stands.

These laws are also not affected by interstate commerce, since they're talking about things manufactured, sold and used in-state... not that this matters much with more modern interpretations of what constitutes "inter-state commerce".

Gnzrme
05-06-2009, 6:51 PM
This will be interesting to see how this plays out....If enacted and enforced, then the next time there is a disaster in Montana, guess what...no federal funds for you...no grants for Law Enforcement, no Federal funding of anykind...Now how is the state of Montana going to replace those dollars....State Sales Tax which they currently do not have...So even though its a great idea, it could cost Montana a lot of money....However, think of all the people that would move there to not be under the Thumb of the ATF

WyoDuner
05-06-2009, 6:56 PM
"I might be moving to Montana soon"
Frank Zappa.

Dang... Beat me to it. :) That is NOT a common song at all.

Silencer
05-06-2009, 6:58 PM
Dang... Beat me to it. :) That is NOT a common song at all.

"Gonna be a dental floss tycoon."

CaptainSpaulding
05-06-2009, 7:05 PM
Garandguy10,

My cousin moved to Montana about five years ago. I've since visited. The winters are DAMN cold for a Kalifornia native like myself. There are women there. I've seen them. The male:female ratio seemed close to even with more males. The people there were a little rough but seemed much friendlier and had a better sense of humor than people in the Bay Area. I don't believe they have a state income tax. If you have a motorcycle you only pay registration once and it doesn't have to be renewed for as long as you own the bike. There were lots of free places to shoot. I hope this helps.

Oh yeah, go to Google and type in: Montana demographics. The results should paint a more accurate picture.

WyoDuner
05-06-2009, 7:07 PM
Love Zappa....

Anyway, I lived in Wyoming for 5 years and it is quite similar to Montana. Long COLD winters, short mild summers. Very blue collar. Low population density. Friendly people. Low cost of living and low wages too.

Tough place to live though because of the climate.

Turo
05-06-2009, 7:15 PM
...then the next time there is a disaster in Montana, guess what...no federal funds for you...

What disasters happen in Montana? lol!

CaptainGlock
05-06-2009, 7:32 PM
What disasters happen in Montana? lol!

Cold winters? :)

Solidmch
05-06-2009, 7:37 PM
Why is the press ignoring this???

7x57
05-06-2009, 7:48 PM
Here is a very short bit while I'm thinking of it. The problem with a rural state is everyone knows your business--if you're from the big city, that is disconcerting. And it also means every single person knows you're a refugee from California. And that brings...questions.

The big question in their mind is whether you're one of the *many* who flee CA and then try to re-create it elsewhere. See, in rural MT (like elsewhere), they like it just the way it is. Even the parts you think are uncouth, unsophisticated, rustic, backward, or whatever. The streets shutting down at nine o'clock. Etc. So if you really want to live there, make it known, when appropriate, that you *like* it the way it is and don't want to change it.

It makes all the difference in the world. As long as you mean it--the locals will smell a put-on a county away, and they don't like that. But they *want* you to like it, just the way it is, and if you really do, and you genuinely fit in instead of deciding to import your old lifestyle, you will find they are the friendliest people in the world.

7x57

DDT
05-06-2009, 11:05 PM
Even the parts you think are uncouth, unsophisticated, rustic, backward, or whatever. The streets shutting down at nine o'clock. Etc. So if you really want to live there, make it known, when appropriate, that you *like* it the way it is and don't want to change it.


Reminds me of back home in Michigan. I lived in medium/small town. Not too long after we moved there it sort of became a popular place for commuters from nearby larger cities. Gentrification was no fun. One of the first areas that started to annoy the locals was that the new folks wanted to pave all the streets. The dirt roads had worked just fine for decades and none of us could see the problem. Then, once they got most of the roads paved these same people and the one that came after them wanted street lights so they could go walking after dark, or for whatever stupid reason people need street lights. Now, the city is 10X as large as it was in 1975 when we moved there and you'd never know where the old downtown was and the township neighborhoods were.

Now, there's nothing wrong with paved roads and there's nothing really wrong with street lights, the problem is that those things seem to attract more and more folks, like, well, like a streetlight attracts moths. One of the reason people move to places with no street lights and dirt roads is to get away from the people who like streetlights and dirt roads.

Canute
05-07-2009, 1:09 AM
Actually, according to the International Dark Sky Association (http://www.darksky.org/mc/page.do), street lights are a waste. I grew up outside of town and they annoy the hell out of me.
EDIT: Oh, I grew up in Antrim County up by the bridge :).

Canute
05-07-2009, 1:53 AM
Here is a very short bit while I'm thinking of it. The problem with a rural state is everyone knows your business--if you're from the big city, that is disconcerting. And it also means every single person knows you're a refugee from California. And that brings...questions.


Being a transplant from the country I've been trying to go the other way with my suburban neighborhood. I've asked my neighbors to turn off their outdoor lights that shine on my house, and installed motion sensitive lighting on my house. I've even made some so far half hearted attempts at campaigning against street lights.
There are some on the street over that pollute my backyard.

cineski
05-07-2009, 7:18 AM
If Montana wins, CA is in big trouble because it basically says Montana can make any gun law they want and uphold it, and CA could end up tightening ship because of something Montana does. I hope this goes down in flames and the Fed Gov realizes that the Constitution is our backbone. With incorporation, I don't see how this could possibly pass, anyway. Sorry, Montana, but I hope you lose this for the sake of CA.

Solidmch
05-07-2009, 7:51 AM
If Montana wins, CA is in big trouble because it basically says Montana can make any gun law they want and uphold it, and CA could end up tightening ship because of something Montana does. I hope this goes down in flames and the Fed Gov realizes that the Constitution is our backbone. With incorporation, I don't see how this could possibly pass, anyway. Sorry, Montana, but I hope you lose this for the sake of CA.

In my opinion this statement is misguided thinking.

cineski
05-07-2009, 8:28 AM
If you elaborate it would be helpful.

In my opinion this statement is misguided thinking.

Decoligny
05-07-2009, 10:14 AM
Dang... Beat me to it. :) That is NOT a common song at all.

"Gonna raise me a crop of dental floss!"

Suvorov
05-07-2009, 10:26 AM
If you elaborate it would be helpful.

The problem with your assumption is that the Right to Keep and Bear arms is one of the Enumerated Rights (at least it is now) and thus in the case of restriction of these rights, a state can not be more restrictive than the Federal Government is (I realize that this is not the case currently, but will hopefully be in a few years post-Heller/Nordyke).

doc1buc
05-07-2009, 10:29 AM
They aren't going to secede, they are just ensuring their language is strong enough to be noticed. If they didn't word it in this way, his lord majesties puppet regime would just giggle and destroy another part of America. Good for you Montana and if CA tries to "tighten the leash" that just gives us more of a reason to be unified as 2A supporters and ensure our voice is heard.

Suvorov
05-07-2009, 10:39 AM
Love Zappa....

Anyway, I lived in Wyoming for 5 years and it is quite similar to Montana. Long COLD winters, short mild summers. Very blue collar. Low population density. Friendly people. Low cost of living and low wages too.

Tough place to live though because of the climate.

Where in Wyoming? I was raised and went to school in Laramie. Lived their 25 years and would love to return, but my Wife isn't too keen on the idea and my job commute would be rough. Best hope for me is the Denver area, but I've already told my wife that I will be putting the Colorado plates on our cars and making sure each one has a University of Wyoming sticker on them before we move.

The thing about Kalifornians moving to states like Wyoming and Montana is that you will immediately be viewed with suspicion. While I certainly believe most of you would do well after they got the chance to know you, most Kalifornians who move to these states come with an attitude and want to bring their "Big City" ways with them and impose them on the natives. Of course, being a Wyomingite living in Kalifornia I am trying to impose my Wyomingite attitudes on the natives here, but the big difference is that I'm right ;)

It is also rough if you are a minority, not that people there are racist, but just because you will truly be a minority and there may not be another person who shares your background for miles. When I was growing up in Wyoming, my Father was the only Russian in the town, there was no Orthodox church in the town, and many of the natives could not pronounce my name. I'm not saying that it was terrible (in fact I'm very happy I grew up there), it is just that you realize that you do not fit into the society as well.

Solidmch
05-07-2009, 12:48 PM
If you elaborate it would be helpful.

The difference is that Montana is exstending rights,not taking them away. It is much easier to argue expanding rights than to argue to take rights away.IMHO if Montana wins it will be a HUGE shot in the arm to exstend your rights and much harder to take them away.

WyoDuner
05-07-2009, 1:59 PM
Where in Wyoming? I was raised and went to school in Laramie....

I was in Cheyenne. Moved there from the East Coast and that is when I started getting into guns, reloading, etc.

I like the people there and feel people from Wyoming, Montana, Dakotas, Idaho and Utah are generally good people. Just hate the weather and the WIND and COLD winters.

JDoe
05-07-2009, 2:23 PM
Glenn Beck talking on this right now...

mecam
05-07-2009, 2:45 PM
Glenn Beck talking on this right now...


Yep, he said we need to keep our current justices healthy. :thumbsup:

cineski
05-08-2009, 10:14 AM
The problem is, if rights can be extended beyond federal control, they can also be taken away rights as is the case in CA, and then some. I'm sure if I lived in a free state, my POV would be vastly different, but it's not. I live in CA and really fear this type of action by other states could end up worsening our laws. As it sits, our only hope of more freedom is by other states following the fed's laws, and the hope that federal laws are seemingly loosening up with regards to the 2nd amendment. When states take a singular approach, other states suffer. Whereas if we look at the big picture like we're all in it together, well....I don't know....I guess those states that are more conservative would suffer at our behalf. The point of Nordyke, and all the enthusiasm surrounding it would be lost if Montana proceeds with this. If there's any give and take in any direction, CA will take note and keep doing what they're doing. I fear the powers of a singular CA much more than the federal government who listens to the entire nation.

The difference is that Montana is exstending rights,not taking them away. It is much easier to argue expanding rights than to argue to take rights away.IMHO if Montana wins it will be a HUGE shot in the arm to exstend your rights and much harder to take them away.

7x57
05-08-2009, 10:30 AM
TWhereas if we look at the big picture like we're all in it together, well....I don't know....I guess those states that are more conservative would suffer at our behalf.


As an expatriate Montanan living in California, let me be blunt--neither you nor anyone else has the slightest right to suggest, even for a second, that Montana should be less free simply because California has a habit of voting against it's own freedom. California's problems are California's.

Besides the practical problem of actually living here subject to California's laws, I support CA gun rights because bad laws here metastasize like cancer through the rest of the country. I'm protecting the free states. If I thought that most of the California gun-rights community thought as you do and wanted to impair the freedom of those who did no wrong for the sake of those who did wrong, I would never do anything for California gun rights again.


The point of Nordyke, and all the enthusiasm surrounding it would be lost if Montana proceeds with this.


No, you just really don't understand Nordyke. Nordyke said the states cannot violate the federal 2A. It is about *state* power, and the federal *legislative* (ETA: I meant *judicial*, of course) power to strike down state laws that violate the 2A. Montana said (perhaps futilely, but we love them for the stand anyway) that the feds cannot seize a power reserved to the states by making wishes on the Commerce clause as though it were a magic genie. It is about *federal* power, and specifically federal *legislative* power.

Your fear amounts to saying that a limit on congress will prevent the courts from striking down California laws. I hope you can see that's silly--it's like saying that me being crippled will prevent you from running.


I fear the powers of a singular CA much more than the federal government who listens to the entire nation.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it isn't relevant in understanding the American government. The people who designed it emphatically disagreed with you--they feared the feds more than any state government, and designed a system which reflects those fears. If you want to re-interpret everything based on how you *want* it to be, then you're just a Living Constitutionalist with a different agenda and are as dangerous to the rule of law as the most liberal judge who ever lived (in theory, in practice you and I can't do any damage because we don't have the office).

7x57

cineski
05-08-2009, 11:13 AM
7x57, I guess I see this country as in it together (which is obviously not your POV, and maybe not reality but that's why we're in the position we're in right now). There's a very limited number of states like CA and when the whole country won't put up with anti 2a laws, then that's good for us. Taking the POV that we're (CA) our own country, then you get what CA has become. I think the country as a whole is much more pro-2a and if we listen to the country as a whole, those 4-5 states with crap gun laws will come out far ahead. Nordyke and Heller are proof of this. However, when a state like Montana starts to go the other direction from what DC was trying to do, it completely contradicts the progress that's been being made in other parts of the country. That's like saying if Montana goes outside the lines, then why should DC abide by Heller? It's quite simple, really. Making strides together delicately is the best way to move forward. And I'm sorry, but your comments on me are completely out of line and on a tangent that did not stem from my comments. I am not more dangerous than the most liberal of judges and I take great offense to this comment. I never once suggested that Montana give up rights. What I'm saying is that when a state like CA or IL gets so far out of hand that there must be a point that someone steps in to say stop. Yes, the federal government should tell CA to stop. They did with DC and now DC is a better place because of it and the influence of what happened there is starting to bleed out to other anti gun states. So what happens in other states does effect us. That's the point I'm trying to make. Your comments simply suggest that CA is **** out of luck and I don't believe that. We can make progress in CA based on what's going on in other states, so maybe my comment about reality is off. We are in it together. It's just a slow progression.

7x57
05-08-2009, 2:51 PM
7x57, I guess I see this country as in it together (which is obviously not your POV, and maybe not reality but that's why we're in the position we're in right now).


Not all POVs are equally valid. Some contradict the design of the Constitution. For that matter, Federalism was a condition of union. You may not attempt to go back on it now.


There's a very limited number of states like CA and when the whole country won't put up with anti 2a laws, then that's good for us.


Those "very limited number of states" have been screwing up places like Montana since, well, the union. Who do you think passes the laws places like that hate most? Yup--CA, NY, etc. It's a big joke now that you want your victims to save you.


Taking the POV that we're (CA) our own country, then you get what CA has become.


It is not my POV--it is the law of the land. And yes, the Constitution gives the states a lot of latitude to create their own little hells without Federal interference. That was a condition of union. Stop advocating breaking the very Constitution you and I hope to assert against the states.


I think the country as a whole is much more pro-2a and if we listen to the country as a whole, those 4-5 states with crap gun laws will come out far ahead.


First, you fail to consider that those "few states" have most of the population. Second, you fail to consider that they regard states like Montana as "flyover country." They have the greatest of contempt for them, their culture (which is closer to the original American culture), and their way of life. They will not listen. Perhaps we can beat them with a 2A stick, but force is absolutely the only way to make them obey the law.

The idea that NY or DC would listen to Montana on gun laws is less sane than believing in the tooth fairy.


Nordyke and Heller are proof of this.


Oh? So the states made those decisions, not judges? Or at least judges in Montana, not in DC and San Francisco?


However, when a state like Montana starts to go the other direction from what DC was trying to do, it completely contradicts the progress that's been being made in other parts of the country.


Let me make this clear. Montana doesn't need to make much progress on this subject--it has never transgressed the law like, say DC. You. May. Not. make Montana responsible for DC's violations of the law.


That's like saying if Montana goes outside the lines, then why should DC abide by Heller?


It is nothing like that. Montana is subject to the same law as CA, being in the ninth circuit. The difference is that on a *completely different subject* (Constitutional Federalism) Montana wishes the law to be obeyed there as well. You wish to break a law you don't like (Federalism) to further your agenda for a law you do (the 2A). But if you can break federalism, then the other guys can break the 2A. It's that simple. By advocating breaking the law w.r.t. Federalism, you destroy the basis of your 2A claims against California.


It's quite simple, really. Making strides together delicately is the best way to move forward.


We can't stride together when Montana is miles ahead of CA in NOT BREAKING THE LAW. CA may try to catch up to Montana, and bully if they do. But they may not attempt to drag Montana down into their hell as part of their solution.


I am not more dangerous than the most liberal of judges and I take great offense to this comment.


Not half as offended as I am that you suggest Montanans give up their rights for your agenda, you can be sure.

And yes, you continue to push their *method* of using federal power against the states where the Constitution does not intend the feds to have that power.


I never once suggested that Montana give up rights.


You may say that, but over and over again, you do. Montanans have the right to assert their state's sovereignty against Federal encroachment (and contrary to your short-sighted view, it's good for California that they do, but they'd have the right even if that were not the case). Commerce Clause abuse is one of the principle tools of federal encroachment. You seek to deny them that right.

Much good it will do them when the federal courts will not enforce the law, but they have the right to seek redress peaceably. "By all lawful means."


What I'm saying is that when a state like CA or IL gets so far out of hand that there must be a point that someone steps in to say stop.



Yes, the federal government should tell CA to stop.


Ah, yes, the Statist solution. The opposite of that of the Constitution, which seeks to deny the feds the power to Do All Good so that it also does not have the power to Do All Evil.


They did with DC and now DC is a better place because of it and the influence of what happened there is starting to bleed out to other anti gun states.


You simply cannot understand the difference between the federal courts having the power to strike down state laws and congress having the power to pass laws. The former is negative--it negates unconstitutional laws, but does not create new ones. The latter is coercive.


Your comments simply suggest that CA is **** out of luck and I don't believe that.


If it can't solve it's problems without oppressing other states, then yes, yes it is.

I don't believe that is true, but if it is then CA must suffer the consequences of what it has wrought without oppressing others over it.


We can make progress in CA based on what's going on in other states, so maybe my comment about reality is off. We are in it together. It's just a slow progression.

Once again, I insist that you do not use "we're in it together" to advocate the denial of the rights of others.

7x57

MontClaire
05-08-2009, 3:20 PM
Awesome showdown is coming soon...... get popcorn.

Chuck Norris aka Montana vs. Obama aka Big Swine Gov't out of control.


if this swings the right way...it may not take long until montana real estate will see a spike. Also, there must be major manufacturers who'd move their operations there, and....imagine the possibilities: it could be like internet boom at the end of 90's except without those uneducated self-important 18 year old ceo-douchebags that lost my money. Many of those who wanted to try their own weapon ideas in practice will surely like the opportunity. We are working on a weapons venture fund within my own investment bank to focus on this specific idea of possibility. If this get's of the ground.....there are trillions to be made. At my bank we watch this very closely.

Super Spy
05-08-2009, 3:30 PM
I've been thinking of moving to a different state, Montana has good hunting, lakes, do they have cute chicks there?

cineski
05-08-2009, 4:21 PM
7x57, you're not reading some of what I wrote. The point is that Montana is trying to create new laws that negate the federal laws, not take anything away from the citizens already in place. DC did the same thing for years on the complete opposite end of the spectrum and it was just shot down and the residents of DC are now freer because of this. If Montana does this and wins, then why can't DC do what they do? Want a gun? Go move your *** to Montana! I never said take away any rights of the citizens of Montana. Stay with their current laws? Absolutely. Create new ones in light of what's going on around the country? That will hurt the rest of the country. Montana's got some great gun laws already. However, if Montana is allowed to step outside the lines like they're trying to do and if they succeed, then DC and CA will, too, but they're going the complete opposite direction with afterburners glowing. Montana's situation will prove to be fuel for the liberals. If Montana can do what they want outside the lines, then so can CA.....which will lead to stricter laws. Even a slight pinhole will be found by these people and stretched into a huge gap. Once more, if Montana stays where they are, not taking any rights away form people, by the way things have been going, CA will catch up without taking anything away from the people of Montana. You keep coming back to this as a defense, and stating that equalization takes away from Montana. No. It's not equalization. It's Montana staying strong where they are so that CA can catch up in a very volatile environment. DC has already taken steps to being closer to Montana, albeit still lightyears away.

7x57
05-08-2009, 6:09 PM
7x57, you're not reading some of what I wrote.


On the contrary, you are refusing to accept the facts of the situation.


The point is that Montana is trying to create new laws that negate the federal laws, not take anything away from the citizens already in place.


Utterly wrong. Those federal laws were Unconstitutional and took away the powers of the states, which violated the compact which the Constitution represents. It was taken away from us because the populous states did not care to obey the law when it stood in the way of their agenda. Montana, as just one of a number of states, is refusing to accept the chains quietly, in spite of your insistence that it do so.


DC did the same thing for years on the complete opposite end of the spectrum and it was just shot down and the residents of DC are now freer because of this.


Once again, you equate obeying the law with breaking the law, because you only see things in terms of federal control. The repetition is getting tiring.

Once again: The federal government is constantly in violation of the compact via insane extension of the Commerce clause. DC is also in violation of the compact as amended by the fourteenth amendment. The federal courts have in the past refused to admit the law and enforce it in both cases.

Now recently, for the first time in the modern era, the supreme court admitted what the Second Amendment means and enforced a tiny portion of it against DC. Montana's law, whether it is a futile gesture or not (and it has all the signs of being one), insists that the actual law also be enforced in the case of the Commerce clause. It says that the federal government *never had that power in the first place*, and therefore the federal law is null. It was never valid. It seeks to influence the courts to admit that the commerce clause cannot be read in a way that makes the rest of the constitution meaningless (which is what they currently do) and to enforce the law there as well by striking down unConstitutional federal arrogations of power.

Until you understand that, this conversation can't go anywere.


If Montana does this and wins, then why can't DC do what they do?


Because the law says they can't. It's just that simple, though you don't seem to understand the law and insist it is something different.


Want a gun? Go move your *** to Montana! I never said take away any rights of the citizens of Montana.


Why do you just repeat things that are flatly not true?


Stay with their current laws? Absolutely.


No. Strike down unconstitutional laws, whether they be DC gun control laws or federal gun control laws. That is the only way to preserve the rule of law.


Create new ones in light of what's going on around the country? That will hurt the rest of the country.


Montana did not create a new law, precisely. It found some spine to resist an unconstitutional federal arrogation of power.


Montana's got some great gun laws already. However, if Montana is allowed to step outside the lines like they're trying to do and if they succeed, then DC and CA will, too, but they're going the complete opposite direction with afterburners glowing.


Is this going to turn into a remedial reading course? Montana is insisting that the federal government step back inside the lines, just as the Heller decision insists in a somewhat different case.


Montana's situation will prove to be fuel for the liberals. If Montana can do what they want outside the lines, then so can CA.....which will lead to stricter laws.


I simply don't think you either can or will listen, one or the other, but I persevere. Montana cannot "do what it wants," nor is it "outside the lines." It's laws are reasonably close to adherence to the Second Amendment, though there are cases where the law is not de jure sufficiently protective of the right of self defense even though the actual practice of law enforcement usually is (almost precisely the opposite of California, where the law is better than the practice). The federal government is the one outside the lines. Every state has a *duty* to do what Montana did or some other better gesture if one exists.

Over and over again: the feds are outside the line. Montana is not (or not enough to be worthy of comment in this context).

And you've already seen the analogous situation with California trying to legalize pot. Was it good policy? Whatever...it was within the state's powers. The same misuse of the commerce clause by which the feds seized unlawful power to regulate firearms was also used to seize unlawful power to regulate pot.

Now, when CA tried this, some other states filed amicus briefs in California's favor. In fact none of them had legalized pot, and said it was bad policy--but it was *their* policy, their power to regulate, and the feds could not take it over.


Once more, if Montana stays where they are, not taking any rights away form people, by the way things have been going, CA will catch up without taking anything away from the people of Montana. You keep coming back to this as a defense, and stating that equalization takes away from Montana. No. It's not equalization.


Prepare to be more offended. You argument continues to be indistinguishable from the left. You argue for taking away legal rights in the name of some nebulous concept of fairness and equality *of result*. Never. Never ever ever ever. You may not break the rule of law that way.


It's Montana staying strong where they are so that CA can catch up in a very volatile environment. DC has already taken steps to being closer to Montana, albeit still lightyears away.

Your opinion is immaterial. The Constitution says that what the other states do is irrelevant to what Montana does. As long as you do not accept that, you are advocating breaking the Constitution.

All this is in fact good for California too, in direct contradiction to your thesis, but it doesn't matter whether it is or not. What matters is that Montana is within the law (though I'm pretty sure futilely, but we'll see if enough states jump on the bandwagon to start having some mindshare) and neither California nor DC nor the federal government is.

7x57

cineski
05-09-2009, 7:16 AM
7x57, you constantly make personal jabs and tell me my opinion is completely not important. My offense is not in what you say, but the fact that you make this personal. This is a FORUM. Everyone's opinion has merit for discussion here and over half of what you say is toned "you suck and until you see things my way our discussion is pointless" despite the fact that you write a small book per reply and are trying so hard to change my mind. Your tone won't allow my mind to be change because your angry rhetoric overshadows any of your opinions on the matter being discussed.

7x57
05-09-2009, 10:25 AM
7x57, you constantly make personal jabs and tell me my opinion is completely not important.

You are discussing matters of law, not opinion. You are also advocating violating the rights of Montanans and the sovereignty of the state for a strategy that is both counterproductive and tolerates breaking the law, which is Federalism no matter what liberal law professors wish. That's quite personal, especially once you've lived in California and know how much you gave up when you moved behind the "hemp curtain." California regularly violates my rights, they don't need your encouragement.

Living in a rural Western state means living a life where your liberty and the rule of law are incessantly under attack by the imperialism of both coasts, and if it weren't for the great compromise giving us the ability to resist oppression we'd have none left.

If you wish to stop attacking the law and the personal liberty of those who more closely follow it than California, by all means let's do so.

7x57

SVT_Fox
05-09-2009, 11:38 AM
empowering state rights is the ONLY way to kill the progressive movement without bloodshed, this is how we DESTROY the progressives ways all the way back to Roosevelt #1 in 1900

evan69
05-09-2009, 11:46 AM
After college I am considering doing grad school in a free state instead of staying in California for it. These states just rose to the top of the list of possibilities.

hvengel
05-09-2009, 1:07 PM
might be a great sample
the GOv now pays some farmers to "NOT GROW CORN" I can't remember why, but it may be pretty easy to look up....I might just do that.
I guess a comedian caught wind of this & worked it into a joke, saying he gets up at the crack of noon to "NOT GROW CORN":p

The case in question involved a farmer who grew wheat for his own use that when added to the wheat he produced for sale exceeded his allowed amount (his quota). The gov. controls how much land can be used to grow wheat (and many other farm goods) to prop up prices through limited supply so that farmers can earn a living. The gov will pay farmers to "set aside" (IE. not grow on) the amount of land that, if all farmers did the set aside, would result in the correct amount of production. They also set a minimum price (so called price supports) and farmers who agree to the set asides will get a .gov subsidy if the price falls below that level. So there are two incentives for farmers to do the set asides, 1) being payed up from to not grow as much and 2) having minimum price guaranties on what they grow.

But you do have it wrong about the current situation with corn. Now days because of demand for corn for bio fuels, which is fueling a shortage of corn for food, .gov is encouraging farmers to grow as much corn as they can and they are actually paying farmers to grow more corn. Although it was not that long ago that .gov was paying farmers to not grow corn.

thisismyboomstick
05-12-2009, 4:56 PM
This is what I would love to see happen:

A wealthy, altruistic, freedom-loving individual needs to move to MT and gear up to mass-produce cheap, functional suppressors to be passed out freely as soon as this law goes into effect.

Why suppressors?

For one they would be dirt cheap to make and therefore able to be distributed to a maximum number of people. Give as many people as possible a personal stake in seeing fedzilla stuffed back in it's cage. What could the feds do? Throw thousands of law-abiding Montana citizens in federal prison?

Secondly, of all of the items that HB 246 prevents the feds from controlling suppressors have the most federal laws regulating them which would serve to put more federal laws on shaky ground.

Also, on a side note, here is a good video from Tom Woods on nullification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Vcjm3XiOk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Vcjm3XiOk)

gunsmith
05-12-2009, 5:36 PM
First, you fail to consider that those "few states" have most of the population. Second, you fail to consider that they regard states like Montana as "flyover country." They have the greatest of contempt for them, their culture (which is closer to the original American culture), and their way of life. They will not listen. Perhaps we can beat them with a 2A stick, but force is absolutely the only way to make them obey the law.



It is nothing like that. Montana is subject to the same law as CA, being in the ninth circuit.


I'm fairly certain Montana is not in the Ninth Circuit, plus "contempt" may not be a strong enough word, I'm a native new yorker, they are full of deranged hatred for people living in relative freedom, they cheered when the kids in Waco were burned alive, they think it really is better that a women be raped rather then carry a gun to fight back, they despise loathe and fear common sense and freedom... They yearn for a "Brave New World"
The insanity and ignorant hatred of the common New Yorker may be impossible to comprehend, I can trace my lineage to Aaron Burr and others who actually fought in the American Revolution, my genetic makeup is pure NY/NJ (which is how I know so well) many old friends have completely stopped talking to me simply for being a gun owner, they honestly believe people in other states want guns only to kill minorities and minorities owning guns only want to kill white people.
They can not comprehend an "armed polite society"

If the fedgov was to round up and execute people for owning even single
shot .410's most of them would cheer.

To them, a one year waiting period and 5000$ fee per gun is "loose gun laws"

Model X
05-12-2009, 5:38 PM
http://i.techrepublic.com.com/blogs/circuit9.gif

Yep Montana is in the 9th circuit

Also hawaii is in the middle of the country and Alaska is nice n warm

7x57
05-12-2009, 6:07 PM
I'm fairly certain Montana is not in the Ninth Circuit,


Hoo, yah, it sure is. Being subject to precedents set in California courts is the sort of thing that sears itself in your memory like a hot pincer.


I can trace my lineage to Aaron Burr and others who actually fought in the American Revolution, my genetic makeup is pure NY/NJ (which is how I know so well) many old friends have completely stopped talking to me simply for being a gun owner,

Sorry to hear that, but you can visit Montana anytime. Just let 'em know you fled NY and *like* Montana just the way it is and you'll have plenty of friends. Tell 'em you like wheelguns and .270s or something and support Calguns trying to keep NY laws from spreading in the West and you'll seal the deal. :thumbsup:

7x57

Wizard99
05-12-2009, 9:27 PM
I don't see anything in the Montana law that requires sales of these firearms and ammunition to Montana residents. Just that if they are manufactured and remain within Montana then there is no "interstate" commerce.

As a California resident I should be able to purchase firearms and ammunition in Montana so long as they stay within Montana.

What happens if a Montana resident purchases a "Montana" firearm and then later moves to another state? There is no Federal law regulating the movment of non "class III" firearms across state lines by the owner of that firearm.

If I go to Montana and purchase "Montana" ammunition who is going to prevent me from crossing state lines with this ammunition? If I go to Montana and purchase one of these firearms the commerce has occured in Montana. After that its my property and I can go werever I want with it.

Ironchef
05-13-2009, 10:53 AM
Yeeha! I went from a state where the governor "acted" tough to a state where the governor is tough. Gov Sweitzer is a model governor for the whole nation to follow. What I hear is that we (Montana) joined the union with a promise that our gun laws would never be touched. This law is meant to test the government's promise of that condition....and yes, leaving the union in violation of that agreement could happen!

I buy my ammo from manufacturers here...but my guns are from russia, georgia, and massachussets. There are some smiths around here that actually make AR receivers and I'm fixin' to pick one up soon. Haven't found any montana handgun manufacturers yet, but I'm sure there's some.

If you are moving here, the job market is much more robust than in CA...at least for my field (IT) which is odd considering construction, logging, healthcare, and forestry are the bigger job markets here.

VIVA an Independent Montana!! lol

I've been thinking of moving to a different state, Montana has good hunting, lakes, do they have cute chicks there?
I'm in the beautiful bitterroot valley (western edge with the best mountains, fires, scenery, and chinook weather) and it's 54% female here. Cute? That's relative. Californians are and have been populating this valley and Missoula is like a small Berkeley so gun culture is waning a little. While people here are not all armed, the PD here fully respects carrying (i called and talked to two cops) and I think that's a reflection of the leadership here and the rich gun culture..and of course that statehood agreement I referenced above...but the Californians moving in aren't aware of that history and culture so much (i was tho).

So come one, and come all! Get chicks up here!

I do installs for wireless Internet so I'm in alot of homes here and from rich to poor, rural to suburban, everyone's got loaded rifles propped up against the walls near doors, or have gun racks in their home, or nice gun cases, and it's awesome! I used to not carry inside customer homes (leaving my G26 in my bag in the truck) but now I'm not so worried if the topic comes up. Pretty cool people up here...way cooler than CA!! Neener neener!

gunsmith
05-13-2009, 12:51 PM
Are "streetsweepers" legal in MT now?

7x57
05-13-2009, 1:03 PM
Are "streetsweepers" legal in MT now?

Legal? They're unionized!

Oh, wait, are we still talking about guns? :D

7x57

jnojr
05-13-2009, 4:11 PM
The problem is, if rights can be extended beyond federal control, they can also be taken away rights as is the case in CA, and then some. I'm sure if I lived in a free state, my POV would be vastly different, but it's not. I live in CA and really fear this type of action by other states could end up worsening our laws.

If laws can get "better" in some states and "worse" in others, in a Federal sense, that will simply hasten the day of reckoning.

The only thing that actually "unites" us as a country any more is the pressure of a bloated Federal government. I think we may be entering the stage where, the harder they squeeze, the more states slip through their fingers.

And if some group of states did decide to secede, it would be pretty tough for the Feds to come up with some sort of justification for an incursion by the armed forces... slavery made one heck of a strawman 170 years ago, but there's no current way to demonize secessionists today other than via methods which would result in more states slipping away.

I believe we may live in some fairly interesting times.

DDT
05-13-2009, 4:24 PM
Just that if they are manufactured and remain within Montana then there is no "interstate" commerce.

...

After that its my property and I can go werever I want with it.

If you cross state lines with the item it has instantly been involved in interstate commerce and the feds will be able to go after you.

Wizard99
05-13-2009, 7:06 PM
If you cross state lines with the item it has instantly been involved in interstate commerce and the feds will be able to go after you.

Would that also apply to a Montana resident who purchases one of these firearms and moved to another state 1 year later?

7x57
05-13-2009, 7:29 PM
Would that also apply to a Montana resident who purchases one of these firearms and moved to another state 1 year later?

According the Constitution, I'm sure it wouldn't. No one sold anything to someone living in a different state, so it wouldn't be "interstate commerce." And your property rights would be sacrosanct when taking your possessions with you.

But back to our world, I'm sure congress can find a justification for anything with the commerce clause.

7x57

gunsmith
05-13-2009, 9:22 PM
man, I wish I had the dough to manufacture streetsweepers and A.O.W's and Krinkov's!
Then I could sell them and buy some silencers!

CCWFacts
05-13-2009, 10:11 PM
I assume everyone on this thread is already well familiar with the travesties of Wickard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) and Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich), which effectively say that the Bill of Rights only has nine amendments in it.

DocSkinner
05-14-2009, 10:32 AM
I've been thinking of moving to a different state, Montana has good hunting, lakes, do they have cute chicks there?

do you think sheep are cute?

mecam
05-14-2009, 10:55 AM
do you think sheep are cute?

Here's Miss Montana 2008. :cool:

http://www.missmontana.com/images/hep-2076_1_.jpg

DocSkinner
05-14-2009, 11:38 AM
Here's Miss Montana 2008. :cool:

http://www.missmontana.com/images/hep-2076_1_.jpg

1 in a million (or so) does not make for a rule! ;-)

well, only half the population is female, so 1 in ~500,000...
There are just fewer women as a whole to be able to chose from, therefore there are fewer beautiful women, and fewer average women, and fewer ugly women...

I think the problem most Cali guys would have is going there and finding out the women can out shoot, out hunt, and out fish them...


But then Wyoming does have far more sheep than Montana. I grew up in Idaho - so don't think I don't know...

There are pretty women everywhere, but also certain areas place more emphasis on the beauty part (say like a BEAUTY pageant, or most of Cali...), and what is 'beautiful' varies as well. Like these "wax museum beauties" here in Cali that TV has made famous the world over! ;-)

5hundo
05-14-2009, 12:10 PM
The Federal Government will cut their Federal Highway funding. That's their typical M.O. They did that to Louisiana when they let 18 year olds drink...

Not that this would really do much. Most people in Montana have access to a 4x4 vehicle. If the roads get bumpy, I can't imagine them caring too much about it...

Model X
05-14-2009, 12:25 PM
The Federal Government will cut their Federal Highway funding. That's their typical M.O. They did that to Louisiana when they let 18 year olds drink...

Not that this would really do much. Most people in Montana have access to a 4x4 vehicle. If the roads get bumpy, I can't imagine them caring too much about it...

Well Montana could just be the American Autobahn if they cut the highway funding.

gunsmith
05-14-2009, 6:09 PM
do you think sheep are cute?

Dogs are better then Sheep, Sheep are lousy kissers!

gunsmith
05-14-2009, 6:13 PM
I assume everyone on this thread is already well familiar with the travesties of Wickard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) and Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich), which effectively say that the Bill of Rights only has nine amendments in it.

I've only heard of Raich, what is its relavance to gun questions?
I thought it was a weed issue...(BTW I think weed should be legal, but I still wouldn't smoke it)

DocSkinner
05-14-2009, 6:19 PM
The Federal Government will cut their Federal Highway funding. That's their typical M.O. They did that to Louisiana when they let 18 year olds drink...

Not that this would really do much. Most people in Montana have access to a 4x4 vehicle. If the roads get bumpy, I can't imagine them caring too much about it...

What they did to Idaho when Idaho threatened to not raise the drinking age to 21. A few of the legislators had filed a suit once teh threat of wiothholding hiway funds was made, but teh Judges said there was no suit as no money had been with held, so if they wanted to play it, they would have to not raise the drinking age and let teh fed with hold funds, and THEN they could sue over extortion.


The legislature passed teh drinking age in a last minute session right before the cut off. wimps.
Hopefully Montana will have more spine.

Cato
05-14-2009, 6:50 PM
Me, after college. I would rather be dirt poor in freedom than well off here in california.


Excellent point.

AntiBubba 2.1
05-14-2009, 11:58 PM
Actually, I heard California was going to put the same motion through the Assembly.

Except it wasn't guns and ammunition, but grass-fed beef and almonds. And it wasn't a declaration, but a statement of what they intended to do, if Obama doesn't triple our Federal relief.

Brings a tear to my eye, such courage.

DocSkinner
05-15-2009, 12:19 AM
Here's Miss Montana 2008. :cool:

http://www.missmontana.com/images/hep-2076_1_.jpg

and wait - you only showed her shoulders up, didn't they shear the rest of her? ;-)


All jokes aside -

If the only things in life you like are outdoors - hunting, fishing, etc. Idaho, Wyoming, Montana are all EXCELLENT places to live. Particularly if you like living a very "Christian" life (Idaho has more Mormons per capita than Utah, and the laws generally reflect their beliefs).

If you don't want to live under church rule, and enjoy other things in life, they are a little less desirable.
Not saying any of it is more or less bad - just go with eyes wide open. I like California better as as a whole, I have less organize religion telling me how *I* should live *MY* life. But that is my choice, and why I am sticking here and fighting to get the 2A accepted as a legal standard in the state.


hum - now that I think about that- odd that it seems easier to make Cali gun friendly (non-PC ruled) than those states non-organized religion ruled.

Hum - have to deliberate.

Over another glass of wine...

jgaffney
05-15-2009, 12:32 PM
Regarding interstate commerce.

For the sake of discussion, let's say I manufacture ammunition with the intent of having it sold in Montana only. Let's say I manufacture ALOT of ammunition with the intent of having it sold in Montana only. I'll even mark it "For Sale in Montana Only".

Am I required to limit sales to Montana residents only? If it can be proved that a Montana resident bought MY ammo instead of ordering from Midway have I affected interstate commerce? If I sell to an out of state resident have I affected interstate commerce?

If my "Montana Only" ammo finds its way out of state am I interfering interstate commerce?

I don't know if it's a myth, but I've read that a farmer in the '30s was charged with interfering with interstate commerce because he DIDN'T grow corn - which according to the Roosevelt Administration resulted in higher corn prices in other states.

Just how creative can the federal government get with respect to a violating interstate commerce charge?

I've been away for a while, so I apologize if this has already been covered. I'll admit that I didn't read all of the comments that make up the TEN pages of this thread.

The Commerce Clause is the most abused clause of the Constitution. It is stretched to cover government regulation of just about everything, including health care. Here's an example, with which I've had intimate familiarity:

In the federal regulations regarding wetlands, the original target was wetlands that are adjacent and contiguous with navigable bodies of water. Since Congress had already regulated the navigable bodies as a matter of interstate commerce (think Mississippi River or Great Lakes), it was a natual extension to regulate the wetlands in order to protect the water quality in the navigable waters. When the environmental lobby wanted to expand the wetlands regulations to cover isolated bodies, they had to come up with a new reason. The result was that Congress declared that isolated wetlands MAY be used by migratory birds, and a citizen MAY cross state lines to hunt or observe those migratory birds. Presto! You have a matter of interstate commerce, and Congress goes rushing in!

glockwise2000
07-10-2009, 4:22 PM
Didn't Wyoming intended to secede from the union too a few months ago if Eric Holder's proposal to revive the AWB went through?

One question that keeps me bugging is the term that I saw a while back regarding these states - Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and I believe Utah? The are some kind - a term state? That they could willfully secede from the union if they didn't like jow the feds run their rights or whatsoever. Help

Smokey510
07-10-2009, 4:58 PM
Time to start looking at houeses in Montana...


Ya, and the houses are probably affordable anyways.

anthonyca
07-10-2009, 5:01 PM
Regarding interstate commerce.



Just how creative can the federal government get with respect to a violating interstate commerce charge?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

If growing enough wheat on your own property to feed your family and livestock is "substantial" what do you think the court will say about guns? I hope they follow the Constitution but you know it't only the supreme law of the land so no big deal.

Nessal
07-10-2009, 10:57 PM
I have no problem with any of that except for the part where a felon can buy a gun without a background check. They can probably get it easier and cheaper on the black market. But I rather have them not have another venue of obtaining it.

FastFinger
07-10-2009, 11:07 PM
If you don't want to live under church rule, and enjoy other things in life, they are a little less desirable.
Not saying any of it is more or less bad - just go with eyes wide open. I like California better as as a whole, I have less organize religion telling me how *I* should live *MY* life. But that is my choice, and why I am sticking here and fighting to get the 2A accepted as a legal standard in the state.


What laws in those states do you object to? I know in Utah they have a few goofy liquor laws, but I think even those are rapidly falling by the wayside.

On the other hand, here in CA they are adding laws daily. Can't talk on cell in car, can't have a fireplace, can't water lawn except on Tuesday & Friday, can't own that car, can't do this, can't do that. And we haven't even begun to list the can't have this gun or that mag.

All in all it's my opinion the laws here are far, far more draconian than what you'll find in Idaho, Utah et al.

Personally I'm planning an exploratory recon to Park City this fall.

jerryg1776
07-10-2009, 11:15 PM
I don't understand why the bill Montana just passed specifically excludes fully automatic weapons. If they want to re-assert their rights, why specifically grant the federal government the authority to regulate *some* weapons manufactured, purchased, and used entirely within the state, but not others?

Same reason that Kali is pushing to legalize MJ but not heroin. Somethings are acceptable at the edge and others are too scary to get close too. What if the Kali law says lets legalize MJ and all narcotics. BIG FEDERAL SHOWDOWN and the people, us sane normal ones, would come unglued.

woodsman
07-11-2009, 6:36 PM
Same reason that Kali is pushing to legalize MJ but not heroin. Somethings are acceptable at the edge and others are too scary to get close too. What if the Kali law says lets legalize MJ and all narcotics. BIG FEDERAL SHOWDOWN and the people, us sane normal ones, would come unglued.

California is so completely messed up.

They talk about legaling MJ ( and they know smoking of any kind can lead to cancer ) out of one side of the mouth and want to push for healthier life styles by enforcement if neccessary. Weirdos like Gavin Newsome want to mandate that state employees and prisoners only get fed organic food and make vending machines HEALTHIER.

Makes my head spin..:eek:

thebullet
07-14-2009, 3:09 AM
Those of you looking to move to Montana i recomend a little town called RED LODGE. It is a small town but very nice good fishing and hunting.They also have a gun shop called Big Gun on the main street thre have lots of toys. So enjoy. o yea go to the little town of rosco its like 8 miles a way to the girzzly bar and grill best steaks in life!!!

stuckinhippytown
07-14-2009, 4:11 AM
Thanks bullet think ill make a trip before school starts back up

7x57
07-14-2009, 9:25 AM
Those of you looking to move to Montana i recomend a little town called RED LODGE. It is a small town but very nice good fishing and hunting.They also have a gun shop called Big Gun on the main street thre have lots of toys. So enjoy. o yea go to the little town of rosco its like 8 miles a way to the girzzly bar and grill best steaks in life!!!

While Red Lodge is indeed next door to God's Country in the Beartooth Wilderness, I have a hard time imagining most of our city boys living in a place that primitive. It's going to be like the ski villages nearer to home.

Plus, some of that magnificent hunting & fishing is in Grizzly country, so those who are freaked out by little California black bears and mountain lions probably won't get the full enjoyment of sharing nature with the humpbacked bears.

But indeed the fishing and hunting near Red Lodge is wonderful.

7x57

Flopper
07-14-2009, 10:33 AM
I like California better as as a whole, I have less organize religion telling me how *I* should live *MY* life.


What exactly can you do here that you can't do there? The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is marijuana.

boxbro
07-14-2009, 10:52 AM
What exactly can you do here that you can't do there? The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is marijuana.

Go to the beach perhaps ?
Not deal with god awful winters maybe ?

Fjold
07-14-2009, 10:58 AM
Go to the beach perhaps ?
Not deal with god awful winters maybe ?


With global warming Montana will be paradise in a couple of years.

Decoligny
07-14-2009, 11:11 AM
What exactly can you do here that you can't do there? The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is marijuana.

Surf?

boxbro
07-14-2009, 11:29 AM
With global warming Montana will be paradise in a couple of years.

Then it will secede from the Union and Algore will be voted it's President as a thanks for "inventing" Global Warming.
There goes your paradise. :p

7x57
07-14-2009, 11:33 AM
Then it will secede from the Union and Algore will be voted it's President as a thanks for "inventing" Global Warming.
There goes your paradise. :p

If the point is to end the culture wars, it may end up necessary to split Montana at about the Eastern foothills of the Rockies, because Western Montana is historically Democratic thanks to all the union mining and logging jobs there. However, it isn't 100% certain, thanks to the fact that our Democrats would be unelectable in California. There is a culture gap, but it is sort of a different one and perhaps not resolvable by splitting states along totalitarian/Republican lines.

7x57

bwiese
07-14-2009, 11:42 AM
What exactly can you do here that you can't do there?

- Gainful, well-compensated employment.
- Lose one job, find another... in thinner times other areas are much 'thinner'
- SF Symphony and lotsa great classical music performances.
- Great restaurants: Chinese food tastes real and not prefabbed.
- real sourdough bread (seems not to make it over the Sierras)
- Stanford University bookstore

NorCal MedTac
07-14-2009, 11:47 AM
What exactly can you do here that you can't do there?

Have you seen the women playing volley ball at Santa Cruz Main beach?

boxbro
07-14-2009, 11:48 AM
- Great restaurants: Chinese food tastes real and not prefabbed.

I couldn't live without the great food, then again, I'd probably lose a lot of weight.

Midian
07-14-2009, 11:56 AM
What exactly can you do here that you can't do there?


Work in the entertainment industry. Not freeze to death. Enjoy a wide variety of women. Unbelievable restaurants.

I couldn't imagine uprooting my life because the gun laws are cooler over there.

I love firearms, they're an immense amount of fun. But does not a life make.

Montana has great big balls, and I think what they're doing is fantastic. But without the felony background check, does this mean that true degenerates will be able to obtain firearms through legal channels? I guess if the whole populace is armed it really doesn't matter.

kazman
07-14-2009, 12:32 PM
I'll have to make sure my personal helicopter can make it over to my Montana ranch if the SHTF. Or at least AZ, or UT

mikehaas
07-14-2009, 1:32 PM
If I lived in Montana, I could take the Quigley to every Shiloh match (they made the original movie rifle)...
http://ammoguide.com/gfx/mdhquig.jpg
(Until AB 2728, I was worried it would be added to the Roberti-Roos list. That's a joke, but remember, single-shot .50 BMGs are AWs in this god-forsaken state! :-)

Custom made! Get yours at:
http://www.shilohrifle.com/

Kurt and his troops are a great bunch, but I only get to say 'Hi' at the NRA conventions. It would be great to be 'down the street' - they have an incredible setup there. :-(

Hmmm... I wonder if I can get Kurt to stamp "MADE IN MONTANA" on it? :-)