PDA

View Full Version : Montana law in effect?


CharlieK
10-03-2009, 5:28 AM
I seem to recall that Montana's new law that forbids Federal oversight of any firearm manufactured and used in the state took effect in October. If that's true, did the ATF sue?

Personally, I don't see how the idea of a BATF is even constitutional, with or without Montana's law. One step at a time...

dantodd
10-03-2009, 6:41 AM
I don't see how the idea of a BATF is even constitutional, with or without Montana's law. One step at a time...

Because the executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws of the federal government and there is interstate commerce in Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

GrizzlyGuy
10-03-2009, 7:45 AM
Here is the last thing I've heard about it, the ATF wrote a letter to the Montana FFLs:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d19-ATF-to-Montana-You-will-respect-our-authoritah

GrizzlyGuy
10-03-2009, 8:37 AM
Oops, just saw this while reading through my blog list:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_montana_gun_rights/2009/10/01/267475.html

Sounds like there is a lawsuit going on, but it wasn't filed by the ATF.

CharlieK
10-05-2009, 5:59 AM
Because the executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws of the federal government and there is interstate commerce in Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

I suppose I should have said that I don't think the laws the BATF is enforcing are constitutional. Does anyone think that the founding fathers would agree with these laws, particularly those dealing with firearms, that were passed under the guise of regulating interstate commerce? Wasn't the original idea that the Feds could stop Vermont from charging a tax on apples grown in Maine...or something similar to that? At some point, the Constitution is going to become irrelevant if we keep passing laws that ignore it, don't you think?

CharlieK
10-05-2009, 6:00 AM
Oops, just saw this while reading through my blog list:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_montana_gun_rights/2009/10/01/267475.html

Sounds like there is a lawsuit going on, but it wasn't filed by the ATF.


Thanks, that's the kind of thing I was looking for. It appears Montana is itchin' for the fight. I sure hope they prevail.

Legasat
10-05-2009, 7:48 AM
I suspect this is going to get serious before it gets resolved.

Let's hope they have the stomach for a long drawn out fight.

Dirtbozz
10-05-2009, 8:00 AM
I suspect this is going to get serious before it gets resolved.

Let's hope they have the stomach for a long drawn out fight.

You have to remember that Montana is still part of the "United States of America", unlike Kalifornia. The vast majority still believes in the Constitution. They will fight for their freedoms.

B Strong
10-05-2009, 8:18 AM
You have to remember that Montana is still part of the "United States of America", unlike Kalifornia. The vast majority still believes in the Constitution. They will fight for their freedoms.

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of incorporation, they might have a chance.

Otherwise it's back to the earlier rulings, and that makes any such law passed by a state null and void.

Better that a state would amend it's Constitution to flat out state that every legal resident of the state has an absolute right to purchase, possess and carry firearms.

GrizzlyGuy
10-05-2009, 10:14 AM
I just saw a promo on FOXNews. Glenn Beck is going to discuss this on his TV show today. 2 PM Pacific and it re-runs at 11 PM Pacific.

dantodd
10-05-2009, 12:12 PM
Does this effect the NFA ?

Everything but automatic fire.

G17GUY
10-05-2009, 1:35 PM
its on Now!

yellowfin
10-05-2009, 1:45 PM
It'll be really interesting to see the antis argue states rights to keep the Chicago ban then say Montana must obey the federal law.

Josh3239
10-05-2009, 3:31 PM
This bill was made specifically to pick a fight with the feds. More than likely someone in Montana will exercise their returned right and the feds will intervene. Montana will stand behind their citizen and the case will go to the Supreme Court. This better get moving, losing one friendly justice to an Obama justice would be terrible. As of now, they'd likely rule in favor of Montana 5-4.

It's a gun bill but it's another way of demonstarting the soveregnty of the state of Montana" - Montana Democrat Governor Brian Schweitzer

Telperion
10-05-2009, 8:11 PM
This bill was made specifically to pick a fight with the feds. More than likely someone in Montana will exercise their returned right and the feds will intervene. Montana will stand behind their citizen and the case will go to the Supreme Court. This better get moving, losing one friendly justice to an Obama justice would be terrible. As of now, they'd likely rule in favor of Montana 5-4.

Montana can't "stand behind" one of its citizens beyond providing him a public defender if indigent, and filing an amicus brief for his appeals. If the ATF comes down on somebody living in Montana, he'll be federal custody and courts and Montana can't do squat.

If Montana wanted to pick a direct fight with the Feds over the NFA, there are "better" ways of doing it (I remind folks of Gene's quote on taking the NFA to court), say by manufacturing its own unregistered title II firearms. Even state authorities are required to register NFA firearms, although they don't need to pay tax on transfers and such.

dfletcher
10-05-2009, 8:57 PM
I saw an advert last week for AR 15 lowers in one of the national gun magazines, there was a little blurb on the bottom which read in effect "For sale to Montana residents or to FFL if out of state".

Maybe I'm wrong, but I take that to mean if I'm a Montana resident I can have it mailed direct to me or walk in & buy with no federal paperwork.

tommygunr
10-05-2009, 9:57 PM
I suppose I should have said that I don't think the laws the BATF is enforcing are constitutional. Does anyone think that the founding fathers would agree with these laws, particularly those dealing with firearms, that were passed under the guise of regulating interstate commerce? Wasn't the original idea that the Feds could stop Vermont from charging a tax on apples grown in Maine...or something similar to that? At some point, the Constitution is going to become irrelevant if we keep passing laws that ignore it, don't you think?

I think are founding fathers would be turning over in there graves .
I know I'm still trying to wrap my head around this incorporated thing . Manly because the last time I looked at the Constitution it says " WE THE PEOPLE " in big letters . does it say anywhere WE THE STATES or WE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT nope I can't find it maybe I should read it again .
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c106/tommygunracer/constitution2.gif

leitung
10-06-2009, 5:54 AM
Having visited Montana & met the people, I can tell you.

You don't eff with their:
1)Guns
2)Money
3)Beer
4)Women

In that order..

Sunwolf
10-06-2009, 5:58 AM
Ya mean they aren`t wusses like Californians?

yellowfin
10-06-2009, 11:23 AM
As referenced in a general discussion thread, we just got a BIG BIG BIG ally in the fight: Remington. I'm very much hoping they'll use their brand to bring down the Iron Curtain of 1934. Remington pushing AAC suppressors under the BIG mainstream Remington brand may be our single biggest advancement of gun rights expansion and pro 2nd Amendment ACTIVE SUPPORT coming from the industry. I think it's one thing that can get the non-politically active gun owners off their butts and stand up and demand more. Currently too many don't do anything because they don't want anything they can't already have--I was in that position for most of my life myself. If AAC/Remington cans are advertised in magazines right alongside Remington 870's, 700's, and R15's and marketed directly to them, that just might finally get them asking questions and speaking up, actually reading gun laws and thinking about them. Too many people just pick up the guns they've always had and head out to the woods or the range and never thinking anything is going to change for them.