Suit brought in Montana Firearms Freedom Act

[Matt Collins]

A Montana lawsuit filed on Thursday challenges federal authority to regulate guns manufactured and sold within the state, an argument that would effectively invalidate federal firearm laws in Big Sky Country if adopted by the courts.

The lawsuit arose out of a state law (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm) signed by Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer that took effect on October 1. It says that firearms, ammunition, and accessories manufactured entirely inside Montana are not subject to federal regulation, including background checks for buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers. They would remain subject to state regulation, and machine gun manufacturing is not permitted.

This is part of a new grassroots movement (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5090952.shtml) that's seeking to invoke the principle of states' rights -- including states' authority to regulate firearms within their borders -- to thwart what backers view as an increasingly overreaching federal government.

Read the rest here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/01/taking_liberties/entry5356494.shtml

[Razmear]

What firearms are manufactured in Montana?
It would be nice to support any gun makers who will help this law succeed.

eb

[Dr.3D]

You can bet if this law does succeed, there will be many firearms manufactures thinking about building plants in Montana.

[youngbuck]

I really hope this goes through because it'll help set the precedent for other states to do the same. A double win for both states' rights and the 2nd amendment is an awesome thought. The doors would be opened for new commercial activity, thereby becoming more prosperous, and the state would become more free because people like me would be more likely to move there.

[Reason]

we shall see

[Liberty Rebellion]

Wouldn't be a bad idea to donate to the plaintiff in this case. Battling the feds is expensive

http://www.mtssa.org/

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&business=mssa@mtssa.org&item_name=Montana+Shooting+Sports+Association&no_shipping=1&return=http%3A%2F%2Fmtssa.org%2Fsuccesses.phtml&cancel_return=http%3A%2F%2Fmtssa.org%2Fmembership. phtml

[fisharmor]

Some of the comments on the article are revolting. Some people just don't care about the truth, I guess.

Yeah, if Montana loses, we'll know we're in for some hard times ahead. If they lose, we know that the times are coming when nobody even pays lip service to the Constitution. I don't think that will go over lightly.

[specsaregood]

You can bet if this law does succeed, there will be many firearms manufactures thinking about building plants in Montana.

You think there is enough of a market in just montana to justify building a plant to manufacturing firearms that will only be sold IN montana? I kinda doubt it.

IIRC, tennessee passed a similar law earlier this year too.

[Pericles]

You think there is enough of a market in just montana to justify building a plant to manufacturing firearms that will only be sold IN montana?

There will be when I move there.

In effect, success would nullify the 1968 GCA, and then the next step would be to extend the state law to all firearms, which would nullify the NFA of 1934. There would be some economic activity around the market price of full auto M16s going from $14K as they are today, to the $1K they actually cost to produce.

[erowe1]

It's unfortunate that they are turning to some court to tell them whether or not they are allowed to do something rather than simply asserting the right.

[Matt Collins]

It's unfortunate that they are turning to some court to tell them whether or not they are allowed to do something rather than simply asserting the right.
Well you should go through the proper channels until they no longer work. Try it the right way first before you go off the reservation.

[catdd]

Tennessee is keeping a close watch on those proceedings.

[Dr.3D]

You think there is enough of a market in just montana to justify building a plant to manufacturing firearms that will only be sold IN montana? I kinda doubt it.

IIRC, tennessee passed a similar law earlier this year too.

Sure I do. Any company that can get the tenuous fingers of government control out of it's business will be more than happy to build a small plant there. It's not like all of the parts need to be made in Montana. If many of the parts are made out of state and the final product is assembled in Montana, wouldn't that satisfy the requirement of being made in Montana?

[erowe1]

Well you should go through the proper channels until they no longer work. Try it the right way first before you go off the reservation.

I don't think there's anything proper about an arm of the federal government being able to adjudicate a dispute between a state and another arm of the federal government. Judicial review also isn't in the Constitution (not that it would make it ok if it were).

[Pericles]

I don't think there's anything proper about an arm of the federal government being able to adjudicate a dispute between a state and another arm of the federal government. Judicial review also isn't in the Constitution (not that it would make it ok if it were).

I'd argue that one of the reasons we have such a messed up body of case law is that judges decide the verdict, then look for law to support that verdict. There was supposed to be s dictum that bad cases make bad law. Courts tend to get bad cases.

I'd go further to argue one of the reasons Heller turned out as it did, was that 5 justices realized that deciding the case the other way was an invitation to confiscation, and there are Americans who will not be disarmed. In this sense, being the more radical is better because of the threat of what happens if a class of weapons in widespread possession of the public is subject to a new restriction. The real press is to get the GCA of 1968 and the NFA of 1934 off the books. If it becomes obvious to the SCOTUS that a decision will meet with armed defiance, they probably will not want to set that chain of events into motion.

[cheapseats]

If it becomes obvious to the SCOTUS that a decision will meet with armed defiance, they probably will not want to set that chain of events into motion.

One need only reflect for a moment on how much of how many of the nefarious schemes that have us in ANALYSIS PARALYSIS is owing to flat-out FEAR amongst the People to realize that FEAR is key working the other way, as well.

Not only the Judges, but the Legislators and the President and all those Appointed Officials who function from under an invisibility cloak, MUST be made to fear the People. All else has failed. At this point, in my considered opinion, repetition upon repetition of failed strategeries is a feckless squandering of resources that will later be sorely missed.