| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law |
| 2009-05-06 |
| 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. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #15 The Courts have in the past upheld federal jurisdiction. But as more states and citizens challenge the federal governments authority, the real question becomes what does the Federal Government intend to do if multiple States refuse to accept it Considering how serious this game has recently become, it is unlikely that this is going to end well, unless the Obama administration just decides to back off their intentions to steal our wealth and strip us of our rights. This is no longer a political parlor game, it is a fight to prevent the creation of a tyranny that will control us. I'm not advocating for civil war by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just noting that multiple states are beginning to question and reject the authority of the Federal Government. That's a formula for civil war. I hope it never happens. |
| Posted by: Jumbo Slinerong5015 2009-05-06 21:49 |
| #14 federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. The Courts have in the past upheld federal jurisdiction on the grounds that activity entirely within a given state DISPLACED interstate commerce and was therefor subject to federal regulation. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-05-06 20:00 |
| #13 It'll make the European Union Constitution look like a pamphlet. While our 'Constitution' may be a few pages compared to the EU model, its backed up literally with a law library of interpretations, numerations, and precedents. Most of a revised Constitution will end up similar to the EU model in size just trying to constrain the lawyer and judicial class who think they should be the ruling caste of America, unless you put provision for direct accountability and term limits. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-05-06 18:23 |
| #12 This action, as well as push back by other states such as Oklahoma and Texas, stike me as the opening moves in a second civil war. Reading the other headlines on rantburg and other sites today, I think it is highly questionable that Obama has enough support to deal with this type of State push back. What is he going to do about States that refuse to acknowledge powers the Federal Government does not have? Send in troops? It is highly unlikely that he could muster enough support among the US military or the National Guards to maintain they type of control he needs to continue his agenda of stripping American citizens of their wealth and their freedoms. Our founding fathers were very wise indeed. |
| Posted by: Jumbo Slinerong5015 2009-05-06 18:02 |
| #11 As a practical matter, this is impossible. Current interpretations of the Commerce Power are essentially limitless (Lopez notwithstanding). A rare example where things really couldn't get any worse. Trust me, things can always get worse. ;) As a practical matter I've believed for some time that we need an absolute cap on the size & cost of government. E.g. (off-the-cuff suggestion here): an Amendment limiting the spending & regulatory cost of federal government as a percentage of GDP. They could keep their unlimited sandbox but would be automatically restricted as they overreach; I like the incentives inherent in that sort of thing tough I doubt I'll live long enough to even see it seriously discussed. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2009-05-06 17:39 |
| #10 ... the results might be even less desirable than our present lamentable condition. Agree 100% but I'm not suggesting a Constitutional Convention, I'm suggesting an interstate compact with the participation of at least as many states as would be required to call a Constitutional Convention. The purpose of said compact could be anything but relevant to this discussion it would be the understanding of the several states' as to the rights, obligations & limitations of the 2nd Amendment. Such a compact would, of course, not be binding authority on any federal court but it would be the strongest message that could possibly be sent to our federal government as to the positions of the people vis a vis the 2nd Amendment. It would be very difficult for federal courts to run roughshod over the unified stance of, say, 40 states whereas it's very easy for the federal courts to simply ignore the present maze of conflicting state laws while crafting their own. Similarly it would be difficult for a national political party to stand strongly against the will of that many state legislatures. Not that they wouldn't but I'd think their would be a higher liklihood of a real imposed cost to them for doing so. In effect this might supplant the skewed public opinion polling lefties so love to cite on this issue. At any rate it's just a thought. I do belive individual state laws are doomed to failure and that only by acting in concert would the states have any hope at all of imposing their will on the federal government. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2009-05-06 17:02 |
| #9 What sort of Constitution would his supporters go for? One with 2,480 articles (and that's only volume One). It'll make the European Union Consitution look like a pamplet. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-05-06 17:01 |
| #8 Thus Montana may inadvertently wind up strengthening and extending federal Commerce Clause regulation rather than avoiding it. As a practical matter, this is impossible. Current interpretations of the Commerce Power are essentially limitless (Lopez notwithstanding). A rare example where things really couldn't get any worse. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-05-06 16:54 |
| #7 If a number of states sufficient to call a Constitutional Convention were to sign on , the results might be even less desirable than our present lamentable condition. Remember how many votes Obama got? What sort of Constitution would his supporters go for? |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-05-06 16:44 |
| #6 Canadian police do NOT enter a crime scene without conducting an address/suspect/informant check of the Firearms Registry database. Police unions all advocate general confiscation, and are invoking "officer safety" to withhold effective protective service. Currently, Canadian cops take over twice as long as their US counterparts to answer a major crime complaint. Once they engineered the Registry, they commenced their pre-confiscation plan. If you think the NRA is full of paranoids, go to Canada and you will come back think that they are prophets. |
| Posted by: Glusotle Sproing7572 2009-05-06 16:21 |
| #5 'Moose is exactly correct. Katzenbach v McClung 379 US 294 (1964)is exactly on point. There the S.Ct. unanimously upheld enforcement of federal civil rights legislation against a diner under the auspices of the Commerce Clause because roughly half the diner's supplies, while purchased from a local supplier, had originated out of state. Relevant questions for Montana's challenge: Were all finished parts for the Montana guns actually produced in Montana? If so, did Montana-based businesses produce all of the raw materials present in the finished parts? If so, were all of the tools & machines used to work the raw materials produced entirely in Montana? If so, do those tools and machines contain parts or raw materials sourced outside Montana? That's a good bit farther than Katzenbach went and, to the best of my knowledge, is a good bit farther than any S.Ct. precedent has gone. However it's the path of least resistance to protecting federal civil rights legislation and all of the other federal regulatory schemes that are based on the Commerce Clause. Thus Montana may inadvertently wind up strengthening and extending federal Commerce Clause regulation rather than avoiding it. More interesting to me would be the impact of an interstate compact identical to the Montana law. If a number of states sufficient to call a Constitutional Convention were to sign on the compact itself would become a third rail that perhaps even the S.Ct. would simply decline to touch. Too bad there are no clever lawyers in pro-gun state legislatures. :( |
| Posted by: AzCat 2009-05-06 14:22 |
| #4 I read the bill a few months ago and even suggested some alternative wording. It's very clever in that it tracks exactly what SCOTUS has said are the contours of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. This bill was designed to be challenged and to win. And yes, you will need to leave your Montana guns in Montana if you leave the state (permanently or temporarily). |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-05-06 12:32 |
| #3 The feds will have to challenge this law, not because of any major change to firearms law, but because it opens the door to a vast array of other 10th Amendment challenges that would diminish the size of the federal government by as much as 50%. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-05-06 11:41 |
| #2 If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then... ...then what happens if you want to move out of Montana? Must you transfer them back to a citizen of Montana? |
| Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats 2009-05-06 10:40 |
| #1 Wow. Please pass the popcorn for this showdown at the O.K. corral. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-05-06 09:52 |