http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/04/05/bnews/br51.txt
HELENA, Mont. (AP)-- Montana-made guns may form the basis for a court showdown over states' rights if the governor signs a bill to release some firearms in the state from federal regulation.
The proposed law aims to exempt firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana from federal gun laws. Since the state has few gun laws of its own, the legislation would allow some gunowners and sellers in the state to skirt registration, licensing requirements and background checks entirely.
"We'd like to just be able to make our own guns here in Montana and have the feds stay out of it," said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which helped draft the bill.
The real target, though, is the U.S. Supreme Court. And Marbut and others believe they can hit that mark with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot bolt-action .22 rifle.
In particular, they plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will then file a lawsuit in federal court n with any luck triggering a legal battle that lands in the nation's highest court.
House Bill 246 sailed through the Montana Legislature, but Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer has not yet offered a position on the measure, which awaits his action.
The federal enforcement agency for gun laws has also not taken a firm stand.
"ATF is not going to take a position on this because we don't make any of the laws, we just enforce the laws that Congress makes," said Carrie DiPirro, spokeswoman for the Denver field division, which oversees Montana.
Through the Constitution, Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce, which serves as the legal basis for gun regulation in the United States.
Efforts to bypass that authority have been heard before by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, the court upheld federal regulation of marijuana in California, even if its use is limited to noncommercial purposes n such as medical reasons n and it is grown and used within a state's borders.
Awesome.
I don't look at this as a gun control or 2nd Amendment issue at all. Remove that from the equation. It is not my primary concern here.
It is a States Rights issue. I understand there has to be a balance and we need a somewhat stronger central government than the founders initial envisioned (they realized this too as by 1800 we had national taxes, a navy, a standing army, a central bank, etc.). It took a huge leap forward after the civil war to enforce rights granted under the Constitution. But since WWI we have trended more and more to Big Brother says it and the State WILL comply on all issues, most far apart from the pursuit of liberty or freedom. After WWII it is totally Federal.
Even most of the programs the States run are just subsidiaries of Federal Programs. ODOT is subservient to the US DOT, Oklahoma Department of Education gets so much funding from the Fed that they have to do what they are told, and forget about social programs - the Fed just flat out dictates what we do with those.
All under the guide of Interstate Commerce and of course being careful not to coerce anyone into action. Want a drinking age at 18 y/o old high school graduate? You can do that, we'll yank all your Federal Road money so you'll pay in $500,000,000 to the road fund and get NOTHING back, back you can do it because States have rights.
Want to legalize medical marijuana? Knock yourself out! But we'll burn your fields and arrest state workers handling the evil drug. Oh yeah, we may also start chipping away at medical funding for your state.
One law in the last 60 years has been struck down as being over bearing. Every other law the Congress has passed has been as part of a "limited government" that is restricted by a respect to States Rights. If someone in Colorado lets their son pee while swimming in the Arkansas it might cause a flood in Tulsa and prohibit shipping from the Port of Catoosa- therefor they have cause to regulate the Kool-Aid consumption of children near rivers nationwide.
A gun made in Montana sold to a Montana citizen and used in Montana might fire across interstate lines and blow up a train. The government will not let this stand. The interstate commerce test is a total joke - a fart in Montana reduces the value of Oklahoma natural gas, EVERYTHING effects interstate commerce under their test.
Fight the good fight Montana. California can take it up on alcohol production for their wineries. Oregon on medical Marijuana. Washington State on assisted suicide.
Limited government my eye.
Hmmmm....taxes too?
Quote from: FOTD on April 07, 2009, 09:04:37 AM
Hmmmm....taxes too?
Thanks for adding to the conversation.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 07, 2009, 09:17:46 AM
The interstate commerce test is a total joke - a fart in Montana reduces the value of Oklahoma natural gas
Drew Edmondson is on it!
Additional federal gun laws are not going to be passed anytime soon.
I heard something on NPR yesterday that although there has been a rash of mass shootings recently, Congress will not move on any new proposed gun laws (including reestablishment of the assault weapons ban) because many Democrats know that such measures are unpopular with their local constituents.
I'm glad to hear this.
Anyone else go to the Wanamaker Gun Show last weekend? It was PACKED in there.
Saw some bumber stickers that read, "Obama wants your gun." ::)
I pointed this out to my wife, we laughed, and I wondered, which one does he want to borrow, and why? ;D
--
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 07, 2009, 09:00:52 AM
Awesome.
I don't look at this as a gun control or 2nd Amendment issue at all. Remove that from the equation. It is not my primary concern here.
Sorry you don't see it as a gun control issue, but that's what it is. It's quite literally a manufactured issue put on by people who are STILL trying to paint Obama as a gun grabber. Whatever his feelings, neither he nor congress will act for the reason that Hawkins mentioned.
The "cold dead hands" crowd can't wrap their minds around the fact that they've been politically outmaneuvered. The time and money they're going to spend to keep this zombie walking is pretty laughable. Hell, there's plenty of "gay" in the news these days for free!
I'm confused Chicken Little, was my argument on States right snot coherent?
Also, have firearms been outlawed or something? I was unaware that some political maneuvering had occuered that negated the 2nd Amendment. Please clarify.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 08, 2009, 02:28:51 PM
I'm confused Chicken Little, was my argument on States right snot coherent?
Heh. You said snot.
Quote
The "cold dead hands" crowd can't wrap their minds around the fact that they've been politically outmaneuvered.
I'm with CF on this one, since we are not politically out maneuvered until it becomes illegal to own a firearm. And this admendment exists in case politions forget that the rest of the constitution exists.
And it is over states rights. Read the article, they plan on using the issue of a .22 cal to stand on for the battle. Last I checked, .22's weren't the weapons of choice of the "cold dead hands" crowd. While some may have 2nd admendment reasons for standing behind this bill, the heart of it lays in stat rights, period.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 08, 2009, 02:28:51 PM
I'm confused Chicken Little, was my argument on States right snot coherent?
Also, have firearms been outlawed or something? I was unaware that some political maneuvering had occuered that negated the 2nd Amendment. Please clarify.
It's coherent, just wrong. This is pure wedge-issue politics; a backdoor attempt at starting a fight over guns. Honestly. How many gun manufacturers are there in Montana? Currently zero? And these guys are actually trying to find a person to make them in order to get ATF to tell them to stop? And that doesn't tell you anything?
Why guns? Why not try to exempt Montana-made vodka, or pharmaceuticals? Because. It's. GUNS.
There is no threat to your second amendment rights. None, whatsoever. The gun lobby has got half the country beet-faced red about the issue and there IS no issue. They're shooting blanks and people are starting to figure that out. Obama pwned them on this.
Quote from: Chicken Little on April 08, 2009, 04:38:42 PM
It's coherent, just wrong. This is pure wedge-issue politics; a backdoor attempt at starting a fight over guns. Honestly. How many gun manufacturers are there in Montana? Currently zero? And these guys are actually trying to find a person to make them in order to get ATF to tell them to stop? And that doesn't tell you anything?
Why guns? Why not try to exempt Montana-made vodka, or pharmaceuticals? Because. It's. GUNS.
There is no threat to your second amendment rights. None, whatsoever. The gun lobby has got half the country beet-faced red about the issue and there IS no issue. They're shooting blanks and people are starting to figure that out. Obama pwned them on this.
Now wait a moment here, are you telling me that you went up to Montana and checked all the records and all the towns to make sure there weren't any small firearms manufacturers up there? The reason that the issue is over guns is because, quiet frankly, they are almost a necessity in a wilderness state like montana. That is one of the few places I would actually expect to see a small, local manufacturer. The fact of the matter is as soon as folks such as yourself see the word gun, you go into a flight to start putting down gun owners and advocates as best as you can. If it had been over any other issue, you would most likely never even pipped up.
Quote from: custosnox on April 08, 2009, 03:14:15 PM
I'm with CF on this one, since we are not politically out maneuvered until it becomes illegal to own a firearm. And this admendment exists in case politions forget that the rest of the constitution exists.
Here's what I mean by outmaneuvered: Obama has not made the NRA look
good or
bad, he's made them look
irrelevant. And that is the WORST possible place to be. It makes you do desperate, dumb stuff...like write a law about homemade guns and try to get it to the Supreme Court. That's puts the NRA on par with NORML. Kooky, risky business.
Quote from: custosnox on April 08, 2009, 04:48:54 PM
Now wait a moment here, are you telling me that you went up to Montana and checked all the records...
No...I just read the article.
Quote...they plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will then file a lawsuit in federal court n with any luck triggering a legal battle that lands in the nation's highest court.
If there were a gun manufacturer, wouldn't they have found him or her already? It seems like a pivotal part of their plan, dontcha think? Ya think they might MOVE somebody to Montana to get the popcorn popping? I do.
And what they hell do you know about me? "Folks such as yourself" tend to talk themselves into corners pretty quickly. Did you ASK me if I owned a gun? I'm happy to announce that I do and I'd be tickled to hear that you own one too. I've got my rights and I respect yours. What I can't stomach is dumb*ss wedge issue politics when the world is teetering. God, guns, and gays are so 2004.
Sure, you might need a gun to survive in Montana...kinda sorta...if it snows hard enough. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my life to depend on a gun that I made in my garage. You need a truck in Montana, too, but not necessarily a homemade one. I'd still like to know why they didn't have a bill to sell Montana-made moonshine to eight-year-olds. It's Montana's business, right? That's a state's rights issue. Why guns? 'Cause they're guns.
Quote from: Chicken Little on April 08, 2009, 05:04:01 PM
No...I just read the article.
If there were a gun manufacturer, wouldn't they have found him or her already? It seems like a pivotal part of their plan, dontcha think? Ya think they might MOVE somebody to Montana to get the popcorn popping? I do.
And what they hell do you know about me? "Folks such as yourself" tend to talk themselves into corners pretty quickly. Did you ASK me if I owned a gun? I'm happy to announce that I do and I'd be tickled to hear that you own one too. I've got my rights and I respect yours. What I can't stomach is dumb*ss wedge issue politics when the world is teetering. God, guns, and gays are so 2004. ;)
*applauds*
nowhere in the article does it say that there isn't a small manufacturer in Montana, it says that they want to find one that will be willing to fight the issue all the way to the Supreme Court. And compairing a small, local manufacturer to selling moonshine to an 8 year old is a pretty far stretch. So is trying to place a manufactured rifle or handgun in the catagory of a zip gun (what you would end up with making one in your garage). It still comes down to states rights.
Quote from: custosnox on April 08, 2009, 06:02:13 PMAnd compairing a small, local manufacturer to selling moonshine to an 8 year old is a pretty far stretch.
It's not a stretch at all if the REAL issue is state's rights. In fact, it's the EXACT same issue.
You've argued that this is state's rights, i.e., that a state has dominion over intrastate produce. If Montana decided to start selling Montana-made moonshine to Montanan eight years olds in Montana school cafeterias tomorrow, would you respect their sovereign right abuse their kids? If Montanans molded locally produced plastic explosives into attractive dining room table centerpieces (complete with backwards ticking clock) and sold them, would you respect their sovereign right to blow up their neighborhoods? Would you send in the ATF to save them?
This is about guns. It's the same tactic that NORML uses. It's not about state sovereignty or medicinal uses of marijuana, it's about getting high. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. So, I can't not ask. If Montanans decided to grow and sell their own pot to each other, then that's fine by you, right? Me? I don't do drugs and happen to have a gun but I'm not all "jazzed" about it. But if others are into that, then that's pretty much their business, with the caveat that I do expect EVERYBODY to act responsibly as citizens, parents, friends, etc. Just trying to figure out who is more the libertarian. ;)
Quote from: Chicken Little on April 08, 2009, 07:09:47 PM
Would you send in the ATF to save them?
Not unless someone could make a cogent argument on what the constitutional basis for doing so was that didn't rest on specious logic of the "people in Montana pay federal income tax, so if they die, they are affecting interstate commerce" variety.
Firearm/ammo companies based in Montana that Google found in 2 minutes:
www.altiusguns.com (specializes in biathlon guns)
F.S.G., Inc. Toll Free: 866-243-1934 (ammo)
Half Moon Rifle Shop, 406-892-4409 (custom made .22 to .404)
www.customprojectile.com (ammo)
Chicken Little, this is how you challenge Federal Law. It's how the states (citizens) push back. I agree that it is a ploy and I understand that it is about firearms in this instance. My arguing was ignoring the gun issue entirely (to avoid ye' ole' circular discussion, for the time being).
I'm happy to see a state actively challenging the Federal Government authority using the proper system. They are not skirting the issue, they are passing a law exactly contrary to it and taking it up in the courts. Which is the proper course of action.
On the second amendment issue I somewhat disagree (limited to one paragraph in an attempt to keep focus on Montana). I do think they are eroding gun rights in baby steps, a full frontal assault on gun rights won't work. But as soon as citizens no longer have enough fire power to be able to threaten the government the point of the 2nd Amendment is totally moot. Never forget that the founding fathers used their firearms to overthrow their government and anticipated a need for future generations to do the same (I don't realistically anticipate such a need and admit to being under prepared in such an event, just sayin').
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 09, 2009, 08:35:05 AM
Chicken Little, this is how you challenge Federal Law.
I understand. And as long as we agree that it is a ploy, i.e., that it's really an attempted end run on federal gun registration and that sovereignty or even the public will has little to do with it, then there's little disagreement between us.
How is our right to bear arms going to stop an armored column? There nine other ways to protect our freedom in the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) and each is important.
We will disagree to the extent I believe it is a valid argument, by popular demand in Montana, and an issue of sovereignty. But ignoring those issues, I still think it is a valid as an attempt to challenge Federal law.
I also agree that the weapons we the people are currently allowed to possess by our government would make it very difficult to effect an armed revolution. Certainly our gun control is more effective than that of the King of England. However, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, troops do not live in armored columns and armor is not impenetrable. Several of our founding fathers noted that the threat of armed rebellion serves to keep a government honest.
What's more, the only freedom in the Bill of Rights that is, in effect, self enforcing is the right to bear arms. The government can take over the media and squash the freedom of speech, they can force you to quarter troops, they can (and very very often do) perform searches without warrants or cause (I found pot, therefor the search was OK), they can (and frequently have) imprisoned US citizens without due process, and the Federal Government sure as hell can ignore the 10th Amendment at will. The First Amendment is the best protection against governmental abuses, but in the event the government actively squashes that right we have a recourse so long as the Second Amendment still stands. Freedoms guaranteed on paper and upheld by law is the preferred method, but history has shown that method is not fool proof.
Again, I'm not advocating the use of force nor anticipating it (I think our army would sooner initiate a coup than readily and openly infringe the bill of rights against fellow citizens). But the Second Amendment was written by revolutionaries who used their weapons to overthrow a government. I don't think they had hunting in mind.
If we are disclosing firearm ownership I'll just say I help bump up the average. Even the Oklahoma average. That and I've never broken a law with a firearm.
and all I can add to that is +1 Karma
All federal laws regarding guns are illegal and the states should stop enforcing them. If the federal government wants to continue to make laws that go against the 2nd Ammendment they need to make a new ammendment with those regulations and have it ratified by 2/3rds of the states. Otherwise the feds should let the states make their own gun laws and abide by the Constitution.