PDA

View Full Version : MONTANA FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT


ontmark
10-01-2009, 1:43 PM
GUN GROUPS FILE LAWSUIT TO VALIDATE MONTANA FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today joined with the Montana Shooting Sports Association in a federal lawsuit filed in Missoula to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), which takes effect today, Oct. 1, 2009.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhoades of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The MFFA litigation team also includes other attorneys located in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.”

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate “commerce … among the several states.” It relies on the Tenth Amendment and other principles to exempt Montana-made and retained firearms, accessories and ammunition from federal regulation. Marbut’s group advises Montana citizens not to manufacture an MFFA-covered item until MSSA is upheld in court.

Earlier this year, Tennessee passed similar legislation and lawmakers in 20 other states have indicated that they will introduce MSSA clone legislation, Marbut said. Information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement is being accumulated and made publicly available at firearmsfreedomact.com.

MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. It can be found at mtssa.org.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >
Copyright © 2009 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Legasat
10-01-2009, 2:00 PM
Good. I raise my glass and wish them the best!

7x57
10-01-2009, 2:03 PM
Hmm. Well, they really do mean to ride that bull then. What I worry about is that if they lose, we won't get to try again, and I'm not sure whether this is the best possible effort at the best possible time to try to give a little meaning to Federalism again.

I have wondered whether the chances would have been better to have convinced Wyoming, West Virginia, or some similar state to restore a functioning militia in its original meaning, and then have the state mandate they own their personal militia weapons under a similar "in-state only" system.

Or maybe that's just me being mischievious.

7x57

wildhawker
10-01-2009, 2:10 PM
I'd guess they're trying to beat US v. Crackhead to the punch.

Window_Seat
10-01-2009, 2:15 PM
DQ... Why does anyone need to file a lawsuit to "validate" the MFFA? Doesn't it already say that any feds who attempt to come in and "enforce" federal regs that are deemed "complied with" in MT will be arrested and prosecuted? And on that note, I've been wanting to ask; would the feds be willing to put up that kind of a fight?

Erik; watching a real reality showdown.

kf6tac
10-01-2009, 2:27 PM
DQ... Why does anyone need to file a lawsuit to "validate" the MFFA? Doesn't it already say that any feds who attempt to come in and "enforce" federal regs that are deemed "complied with" in MT will be arrested and prosecuted? And on that note, I've been wanting to ask; would the feds be willing to put up that kind of a fight?

Erik; watching a real reality showdown.

Most likely so that they can litigate the case on their terms. If they sat around and waited until a federal agent was busted under the terms of the act, it would most likely in the context of some sort of criminal investigation involving bad guys with guns, in which case the lawyers for the federal government would be able to paint a doomsday picture of federal agencies unable to act to stop violent criminals who are destroying the fabric of society because Montana is shielding them from federal pursuit. By pursuing a declaratory judgment now, the supporters of the law get to paint the picture.

On an unrelated note, how much practical effect do laws like this have? How many guns are actually manufactured solely in one state, without any of the parts or materials ever having crossed state lines?

BigDogatPlay
10-01-2009, 2:33 PM
On an unrelated note, how much practical effect do laws like this have? How many guns are actually manufactured solely in one state, without any of the parts or materials ever having crossed state lines?

And that is kind of the point, isn't it? Coupled with what happens if just one gun crosses state lines in interstate commerce?

While the Amendment 10 assertions by Montana, and Tennessee, are great on paper, they unfortunately fall flat on scrutiny I think and could ultimately causes us more harm than good depending on how the cards turn.

Super Spy
10-01-2009, 2:35 PM
On an unrelated note, how much practical effect do laws like this have? How many guns are actually manufactured solely in one state, without any of the parts or materials ever having crossed state lines?

Well once this is addressed I'm sure you will see more firearms manufactured completely in Montana. Makes me want to get my FFL 07 and start a business in Montana.

7x57
10-01-2009, 2:39 PM
I'd guess they're trying to beat US v. Crackhead to the punch.

Indeed, that's always the counter argument. The Perfect is indeed the Enemy of the Good. But on the third hand, it doesn't apply here--Crackheads can't pass state legislation asserting 10th amendment reserved powers. On this one exact subject, I think, we can afford to play slowly and deliberately.

7x57

wildhawker
10-01-2009, 2:43 PM
The problem becomes: what compels the firearms to be maintained within the state of manufacture? Would resources not need to be imported/exported or do the several states have sufficient means to provide the necessary elements outside the realm of interstate commerce?

wildhawker
10-01-2009, 2:46 PM
Sorry for the broad use of crackhead; I was implying the "wrong" case, not simply a criminal one with other factors.

7x57
10-01-2009, 2:46 PM
The problem becomes: what compels the firearms to be maintained within the state of manufacture? Would resources not need to be imported/exported or do the several states have sufficient means to provide the necessary elements outside the realm of interstate commerce?

That may be the artificial court-imposed problem, but I believe that in the eighteenth century "commerce" was quite specific to "buying and selling" and was not synonymous with "the economy." I don't believe there was even a word for the latter. So *every* reading that makes anything in the original documents synonymous with that very broad concept is apparently fallacious.

A hat tip to whichever article I found that made me aware of that subtle point.

7x57

yellowfin
10-01-2009, 2:47 PM
On the third hand? I know you're quite wise, but are you Ganesh or Vishnu now?

nicki
10-02-2009, 2:47 AM
Made in Montana guns do run into a problem in how do you keep the gun from traveling interstate?

Seems to me it would have been better to establish that interstate travel of personal property including firearms is not interstate commerce.

If that was done first, it would strengthen this lawsuits.

Nicki

dantodd
10-02-2009, 3:16 AM
Made in Montana guns do run into a problem in how do you keep the gun from traveling interstate?

Seems to me it would have been better to establish that interstate travel of personal property including firearms is not interstate commerce.

If that was done first, it would strengthen this lawsuits.

Nicki

You keep the gun from traveling interstate in the same way you keep the gun from being sold out of state. You pass a law and add the prohibition to the social contract. Just like starting with confirming the right to own and keep a working firearm in the home before fighting the battle of transporting or carrying outside the home. Plus, the only context in which one needs to establish interstate firearm transport is not necessarily interstate commerce is for laws like this one.

dantodd
10-02-2009, 3:17 AM
Indeed, that's always the counter argument. The Perfect is indeed the Enemy of the Good. But on the third hand, it doesn't apply here--Crackheads can't pass state legislation asserting 10th amendment reserved powers. On this one exact subject, I think, we can afford to play slowly and deliberately.


I know of one crackhead who, at the very least voted on anti-gun measures in Washington D.C.

wildhawker
10-02-2009, 10:05 AM
So now we've created a sitation where your 2A rights (as a resident of Montana), when travelling outside Montana, are contingent upon having purchased a firearm made out of state? Further, might the Act just chill bona fide interstate commerce and reduce the supply of goods made out of state?

I'm sorry, but I don't see this as an appropriate vehicle to take up the underlying issues.

You keep the gun from traveling interstate in the same way you keep the gun from being sold out of state. You pass a law and add the prohibition to the social contract. Just like starting with confirming the right to own and keep a working firearm in the home before fighting the battle of transporting or carrying outside the home. Plus, the only context in which one needs to establish interstate firearm transport is not necessarily interstate commerce is for laws like this one.