Montana Firearms Freedom Act - Spreading to Other States

[fingolfen]

Blogged this one - Texas and Alaska introducing similar measures:

<broken link removed>

 

[MacBookProAR]

Even if it made it's way through the WA legislature there's NO way queen christine would sign it! :nuts:

you guys need to de-throne the queen... she has needed to be gone for awhile.

 

[olskool_al]

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I am very curious to see what the feds will do and how long it will take. We can bet there will be other repercussions. They'll cut federal programs and funding for those states. Feds don't play fair.

 

[MacBookProAR]

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I am very curious to see what the feds will do and how long it will take. We can bet there will be other repercussions. They'll cut federal programs and funding for those states. Feds don't play fair.

+1 to this... I find it funny how the Feds hold themselves to some higher power and stupidity in my book. The states have to balance their budget and the Feds are allowed to operate in a deficit. Just one example of how they think they are above the law/reality.

 

[ZeroRing]

you guys need to de-throne the queen... she has needed to be gone for awhile.

Some of us in the rest of the state keep trying but we are constantly over-ruled by the pinko-libs in Seattle. :angry:

 

[Karma]

It probably will go to the Supreme Court by the end. Obama of course it getting set to pick one of the members so that he can make sure he has the ability to re-write the constitution to meet his ideas.

I bet the feds will use the commerce clause. That seems to be their catch all. The courts have ruled that even though something might not cross state lines, it is still likely that it will become part of the US commerce.

It will be really interesting how this turns out. I would love to see something like this in Oregon. I think we have too many Kalifornians here now to ever see something like this though.

 

[Bend]

It probably will go to the Supreme Court by the end. Obama of course it getting set to pick one of the members so that he can make sure he has the ability to re-write the constitution to meet his ideas.

I bet the feds will use the commerce clause. That seems to be their catch all. The courts have ruled that even though something might not cross state lines, it is still likely that it will become part of the US commerce.

It will be really interesting how this turns out. I would love to see something like this in Oregon. I think we have too many Kalifornians here now to ever see something like this though.

The Fed's already have 2 SCOTUS cases that are on point against this:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The Federal .gov can regulate anything at any time. Sorry to rain on this parade.

 

[Leif Runenritzer]

How's Ted Kulongoski on rights, guns, decentralization, asf? I have a bad feeling about him, but i can't remember anything about him.

 

[Bend]

How's Ted Kulongoski on rights, guns, decentralization, asf? I have a bad feeling about him, but i can't remember anything about him.

Gov. Kulongoski isn't packing heat, but he could
by Harry Esteve, The Oregonian
Thursday January 08, 2009, 8:20 PM
SALEM -- Ted Kulongoski, gun buff?

Apparently.

"I collect shotguns," the outdoorsy governor told The Oregonian on Thursday. "I have some pistols, too." He declined to say how many or to name a favorite.

And he has a concealed handgun permit. He said he applied for it years ago when he was state attorney general to see how easy it was to get one.


"Are you packing?" a reporter asked (AP2008, Gov. Ted Kulongoski got his concealed-weapon permit while attorney general in the 1990s. )

"Naw," said the governor, who is protected by state police bodyguards.

The topic arose during a pre-legislative briefing with Oregon newspaper editors. One editor asked Kulongoski if he supports efforts by newspapers to get lists of people who have permits to carry concealed firearms.

"I am a participant in that pool who you're trying to get information from," Kulongoski said. He said he opposes efforts to get around public records law based on technicalities.

 

[tionico]

Even if it made it's way through the WA legislature there's NO way queen christine would sign it!
_______
if enough of the monkeys in the Marble Zoo here in Olympia voted in favor of such a law, she'd either have to sign it or face a veto override. BUT--- I suspect Chump Change in Seattle will succeed in his illegal gun ban in that town far more easily than our zoo denizens will ever pass such a law.

Besides, I've no doubt the over-enlightened congress back in the OTHER Washington will not rest long on such legislation. The "logic" in Gonzales is apalling.... AS IF someone growing marihoochie in their own backyard for private consumption per California law actually competes with other portions of that herb as it enters general commerce in California.... particularly as California is the only state in which consumption and/or cultivation of the stuff is legal. In other words, any interstate commerce in maryjane would be contra Federal regs.... because it IS interstate commerce.
Besides, the prohibition of the purchase of handguns in any state by non-residents of that state is as clear an interference in interstate commerce as anything I can imagine. Yet the congress favours strongly such restrictions.....

who knows what they'll do.

I liked the bit about the bore of legal guns not under Federal regulations... one and a half inches. Now THAT is a dinosaur gun if ever there was one......yet they are now legal to be made, owned, purchased, used within Montana....

Texas and Tennessee are also both working on such a law.... two of the states to which I am considering relocating. Montana would be, except I've known folks who live, or did live, there.. too bloody blinkin cold in winter. No thanks.....

 

[Leif Runenritzer]

Sounds like they might have trouble with when it gets to the supreme court.

Thanks for the insight, Bend. Sounds like it might have a chance of getting signed into law.

 

[dolooper]

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

<snip>

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


Read the last part. I dont think a full auto is gonna fly but the supressor seemed ok IDK?

Unless there's some definition of "projectile" in the bill that clarifies, wouldn't number 4 apply to shotguns as well as full auto? Can't imagine that would be part of the intent, but still.

 

[CaseyPod]

Anybody want to start a co-op farm in Montana and get off the grid?

I love that idea. I work for the government right now, but if I can move to Montana and tell the Fed to kiss my *** - I would be a very happy man. I'd even quit my job to move out there and start a homestead!

Silencers - any gun I want - no worries from BATFE and living off the grid! Amen to that!!

 

[CaseyPod]

As far as the Constitution is concerned- this is completely legal. So if the Supreme Court decides against it- they are voting against the 10th amendment. The fed only has jurisdiction when it involves trade between the states. So if it isn't leaving Montana- then it is none of the Feds business.

If the courts go against this - we are officially a lawless country. When the highest law in the land rejects the founding documents - then the people will have to reject their authority. Tyranny cannot be tolerated - even if it is stamped with the seal of the Supreme Court.

 

[Reco]

wait... so does that mean they can have a suppressor made in Montana and not have to pay a Federal tax stamp? Does this go for other NFA type weapons?

I believe only if ya Live and the weapon remains in Montana according to the law.

 

[Keane]

The Fed's already have 2 SCOTUS cases that are on point against this:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The Federal .gov can regulate anything at any time. Sorry to rain on this parade.

If you read through these two links, the SC has flip-flopped on this about 3 or 4 times.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison
which both say the opposite of that. Now, the Most current (Raich) does say that the feds have basically no limitations. However, if you read the dissent, the court was heavily divided.

I think this could be a bit of a landmark case, and could easily go either way. The fact that this holds Medical Marijuana cases and many others on it, is also interesting.

Interestingly, I think guns have a much better chance at defining the Interstate Commerce Clause than does Marijuana, since it is deemed a more protected right.

 

[tionico]

Montana's got a lot going for it... if only it wasn't so bloody cold in winter. I know a few folk who live there from about April through October.... and head south the rest of the year. I'm weary enough of the cold/wet we've got here. Don't think I could tolerate negative numbers on MY thermometer.......

Now Texas or Tennessee, them's diffrunt.... shure, it gets a might cold betimes, but not like Montana.

 

[Andy]

Montana Firearms Freedom Act
News Release - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
From Gary Marbut-MSSA
[email protected]
8-25-9


"One of the first real attempts to roll back the federal-criminal-assault upon firearms ownership across this nation - and it is working!" - Jim Kirwan
Gun Groups to Sue over Montana-made and Retained Firearms
(for immediate release - 08/21/09)

MISSOULA, MT - the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have formed a strategic alliance to litigate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Montana Legislature and signed into law by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority, resisting Congress's dramatically expanded use of the interstate commerce clause to justify Washington's regulation of virtually all of the private economy. The MFFA also applies to firearm accessories and ammunition.

MSSA is most well-known for advancing pro-gun and pro-hunting bills in the Montana Legislature, and has been successful with 54 pro-gun and pro-hunting measures in the past 25 years. SAF is a pro-gun foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights of gun owners primarily in judicial fora. SAF has been a party to numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.

The primary purpose of the MFFA is to set up a legal challenge to
federal power under the commerce clause. MSSA and SAF expect to mount this legal challenge by filing a suit for a declaratory
judgment to test the principles of the MFFA in federal court on
October 1st, the day the Montana law becomes effective.

The concept of the Firearms Freedom Act has caught fire
nationwide. Tennessee has passed a clone of the MFFA. Other clones have been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Minnesota and Michigan. Legislators in 19 other states have indicated that they will introduce MFFA clones soon or when their legislatures next convene. See:http://firearmsfreedomact.com

This wave of interest across the Nation is what the federal judiciary calls "emerging consensus" and will play an important role in validating the principles of the MFFA.

MSSA president Gary Marbut commented, "We're excited to get the MFFA into court to articulate and argue the principles of freedom and states' rights. It's especially encouraging that people in so many other states are getting tickets to ride this particular freedom train. It will be an interesting journey, and we hope successful one."

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb added, "This is an issue that needs public attention because it challenges federal intrusion into an area where the federal government clearly, and literally, has no business."

The MSSA/SAF legal team is currently working up its arguments and litigation strategy. The team has identified several areas of rationale' that have never been discussed before in cases about Congress's commerce clause power. The general thesis is that Washington has gone way overboard in attempting to regulate the internal affairs of states under the strained theory that states' internal activities are related to interstate commerce.

Although the MFFA addresses firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories specifically, it is primarily about states' rights and the commerce clause power of Congress. Firearms are the object; states' rights and freedom are the subjects.


Information: Gary Marbut; 406-549-1252
http://mtssa.org

Alan Gottlieb; 425-454-7012
http://saf.org

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

 

[ZeroRing]

Good to see that a WA version of the FFA has been introduced in the state legislature (HB-2709 - 2009-10 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2709&year=2009).

Also nice to see that there are TWENTY THREE sponsors.

Still... even if it gets to "her" desk... she won't sign it. :angry:

For the state-by-state status check here --> http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state/#wa

 

[KENOC]

Interesting to note the NRA is not going to stand behind anyone using the freedom this act gives a citizen, if that citizen is charged by the Feds. NRA has washed their hands of it. No surprise, as they do not want to piss off the Feds that they are bedfellows with.