Speaking of Montana
The house passes a bill snubbing federal gun controls:
Montana lawmakers fired another shot in battles for states’ rights as they supported letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government.
Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:51 am
…and by 2011, more small arms were made in Montana than in the rest of the world combined, and the state’s population skyrocketed to 37 million.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Now, if only Montana wasn’t so $#&*(ing cold…
February 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Sounds like a STIMULUS bill that would result in more jobs in Montana…..and more importantly a STIMULUS for FREEDOM!! We need to do it here in Tennessee!! I’ve already written my state senator and state rep re: this legislation when it was mentioned here before.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
So… does this subvert the GCA? It says that all firearms made and used {with only some exclusions specified for title II ( NEW SECTION. 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.)} in Montana….
So…that means a handgun > .50 caliber, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, silencers are all acceptable, just no machineguns… Am I reading that wrong?
found at http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
February 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
TNProgrammer: “subverting the GCA” is the point…
February 17th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
You’d think it would be the other way around. With a Bill of Rights issue, you’d think the feds would be telling state and local governments to back off from any restrictions. But I’ve always said the Left turns reality upside-down.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Robb Allen Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Now, if only Montana wasn’t so $#&*(ing cold…
But damn, it’s beautiful.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
And Robb, their summer is absolutely gorgeous. I think it happened on a Thursday last year.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Awesome… Tennessee has a similar thing up at the moment, and if that passes, I will be all manner of interested.
Though not terribly interested at being the trial case when the ATF decides to flex its … stuff.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
@John Hardin:
I hope I wasn’t construed as being opposed to it. Perhaps a better choice of words would have been “overruling the GCA (Praise ).” It still makes me wonder about the comparable TN bill, at least as to whether I should make my silencer purchase now, or whether I should look wait to see what happens with the bill.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
bah, that was supposed to read: “Praise <Deity>” but i forgot my html. 😛
February 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
I think what ol bri-bri is trying to push is that the feds, under the constitution, have the right to regulate INTERstate commerce. INTRAstate commerce they have no control over–its in the constitution. So, a firearm manufactured and sold entirely within montana should be exempt from federal controls. Bri-bri also told the feds last year/year before to take their real ID requirements and shove them. He’s a democrat, but you just never know about a man with a Bolo tie. I’m from Montana too.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Good luck with that, eric.
See my other comment about the Commerce Clause.
The FedGov has been free to involve itself in anything it wants for a long time.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I might be movin’ to Montana soon
Just to raise me up a crop of dental floss
Raising it up
Waxing it down…
February 18th, 2009 at 11:17 am
As much as I hate the decisions, the supreme court has allowed pretty much any regulation of local activities since the 1930’s. The worst example was a a federal regulation that was found constitutional that was enforced against a man growing food for his own consumption. There was a brief resurgence in commerce clause limitations in the 1990’s but nothing since.
The supremacy clause makes this statute instantly void. Federal agents are still free to enforce firearms violations if they want to.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Something like 11 states disagree with the fedgov on the legality of medpot. Guess who is winning the argument, even though the scotus sides with the fedgov. If enough states do this the batf&e are going to be incredibly busy.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Let’s hope that this law won’t be recorded in history books as the first shot across the bow in the dissolution of the states. It will be very difficult for the feds to enforce this without inflaming national passions. What can the feds do? Send in troops to Montana? Deny them federal funds? As states like California collapse and the current Congrees continues to outright rob our tax dollars from the treasury, I suspect that people in many states will start wishing to be removed from the corruption and prefer to deal with economics and politics on a more local level, where they can have some control. Let’s face it, if the feds deny the funds, then it is a small step from states denying the feds their tax dollars.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
They passed that law? Wow! Go Montana!
Unfortunately, I’m inclined to agree with _Jon about the Commerce Clause; after the precedent of Raich, it wouldn’t be hard for the Feds to force their way on the issue.
I just informed a friend whose family is based in Wyoming to try and get this idea put on the table there… the more states do this, the better the chance that some good may come of it.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
But damn, it’s beautiful.
You’ve obviously never spent any time in Great Falls or points east…
February 18th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“The supremacy clause makes this statute instantly void.”
Tell that to all the liberal cities which have been giving the finger to immigration law for decades.
February 18th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I’d give anything to move to Texas or Montana and I don’t even own a gun. I just love freedom. Ya gotta love a state that thumbs its nose at the Federal gummint.
February 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
> “subverting the GCA” is the point…
Not really. The point is to kill the “states right” argument. Of course, if the states right argument flies (and no one expects it to), federal gun laws are in serious trouble.
February 18th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I live in Idaho not too far from Big Sky Country. Will be watching this with interest…
February 18th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Mr. Ortega, I have been all over Montana.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Well, I can tell ya’ll this much, when the federal prosecutors bring a case under the federal felon in possession law, one of the first things they establish for the judge is that…the firearm in question has traveled in interstate commerce, i.e. it was made in Connecticut and used in Arizona.
Yep. They do.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Becky, they wouldn’t have to send in troops or deny funding. All they have to do is ignore a state “law” they know has as much legal force as the foreign policy pronouncements of the Berkeley City Council, and go ahead enforcing the federal laws as usual. This “law” is mostly a protest vote, not an actual law, but to the extent it does have any legal effect, it will only affect how Montana state laws are construed. It won’t touch federal law.
LM: 18 U.S.C. 922(g) forbids convicted felons, among others, “to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” Proving that the gun was shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce is only one of two ways to to hang the guy. The other is to prove that his possession of any gun or ammo was “in or affecting commerce” (and not even interstate commerce, just commerce).