Federal judge tosses out Montana's firearms freedom act lawsuit

[Anti Federalist]

Heh heh heh...like this was a surprise.

OK folks, what are you prepared to do next?

Rubber: meet road, road, rubber.



Judges Tosses Challenge by Gun-Rights Advocates

1 October

By ANNIE YOUDERIAN

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/01/30741.htm

BOZEMAN, Mont. (CN) - A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit brought by gun-rights advocates seeking a declaration that Montana law allows them to make and sell guns without abiding by federal regulations.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula adopted a federal magistrate's recommendation to toss the lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, because the commerce clause grants Congress the power to regulate firearms.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and resident Gary Marbut had asked Molloy to declare that they could legally make and sell firearms under the 2009 Montana Firearms Freedom Act without complying with federal laws, including licensing and registration requirements.

The state law declares that a "personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress (sic) to regulate interstate commerce."

But the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives held a different view. It warned Marbut in response to his request for clarification that a violation of the federal Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act "could lead to ... potential criminal prosecution."

To the extent that the state law conflicts with federal gun laws and regulations, federal law trumps the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, the ATF explained.

Marbut and other gun-rights advocates argued that this answer violates the 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government's authority to the powers specifically outlined in the Constitution.

Molloy's dismissal sides with the Department of Justice, which argued that the Constitution's commerce clause grants Congress the ability to regulate guns -- even those that never leave Montana.

[pcosmar]

Hang the judge.
Get a new judge.
Show the new judge the old judge.
Refile suit.
;)

[phill4paul]

This is exactly what will happen to every other lawsuit nullification supporters put forth.
So people better start deciding NOW what their next move will be because the federal government WILL NOT let go of its power.
Another harshly written editorial or something more resounding?

[Matt Collins]

Hang the judge. Advocating violence isn't a good thing.

[Dr.3D]

Yep, interstate commerce is now intrastate commerce. That judge needs an education, and not one afforded him by the liberalized educational institutions.

Edit: Of course, it was not in his jurisdiction to make a decision anyway. He would be biased in favor of the federal government.

[Matt Collins]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/Campaign%20VI/Toldja.jpg

[pcosmar]

Advocating violence isn't a good thing.

True enough.

Perhaps some one should explain that to the men that stood at Lexington.

[phill4paul]

Advocating violence isn't a good thing.

Then let's get rid of the ATF. The government is an advocate of violence if individuals do not bow to them or recognize that they are subjects to be ruled over. WACO?

[Matt Collins]

The question is now as to the resolve of both the MT Governor and their legislature. How far are they willing to take this?


Are they willing to arrest any federal official who breaks their law? Or are they going to roll over and say "good fight but we lost this one"?

Will they make the stand, draw the line just to give them a taste, or will they capitulate like cowards?


It ultimately does come down to force.

[fedup100]

This is exactly what will happen to every other lawsuit nullification supporters put forth.
So people better start deciding NOW what their next move will be because the federal government WILL NOT let go of its power.
Another harshly written editorial or something more resounding?

The thugs that own you and your country are laughing at you.

[fedup100]

Advocating violence isn't a good thing.

Your right, the founders would have suggested that you bend over a little farther in order to take that last 8 inches.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

It ultimately does come down to force.


Are you willing to use force in order to defend anything? If no, please go home in peace and wear the chains of servitude. If yes, please articulate what you are personally willing to defend against...

[pcosmar]

For those that are interested (2nd amendment issues) you might look at this,
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=261890
Though a different state, it does show the state of things.
Especially the rest of the story.
http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231

:mad:

[phill4paul]

For those that are interested (2nd amendment issues) you might look at this,
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=261890
Though a different state, it does show the state of things.
Especially the rest of the story.
http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231

:mad:

Exactly this. The second amendment secures all others. Without it then the rest can be re-interpreted to whatever the desires of TPTB.

Unless the state of Montana calls on its citizens to arm themselves and deputizes every citizen that is willing to walk into a federal building and seize it then this was nothing more than than a show.

I'm sure this was anticipated.

I'm sure the next phase would be the supreme court. That may take a few more years.

When it gets there the outcome will be the same.

Times running out Montana. They will call your bluff.

If you make a stand then I'm in the truck and on my way. If not then it is just more useless banter.

[erowe1]

I think the best step is for Montana residents to demand clarification not from federal courts but from their state legislature. The clarification should be another law reaffirming the first one and explicitly empowering state law enforcement to arrest any ATF or other feds who interfere with gun manufacturers, sellers, and owners in Montana who are acting in accordance with state law. Montana residents need to demand this vocally and repeatedly from their representatives, and those legislators who voted for the first law should feel obligated to vote for this one as well. This can be another example proving what Federalist #78 says, which is that the court has neither force nor will, only judgment.

[phill4paul]

I think the best step is for Montana residents to demand clarification not from federal courts but from their state legislature. The clarification should be another law reaffirming the first one and explicitly empowering state law enforcement to arrest any ATF or other feds who interfere with gun manufacturers, sellers, and owners in Montana who are acting in accordance with state law. Montana residents need to demand this vocally and repeatedly from their representatives, and those legislators who voted for the first law should feel obligated to vote for this one as well. This can be another example proving what Federalist #78 says, which is that the court has neither force nor will, only judgment.

I agree.

[fedup100]

Exactly this. The second amendment secures all others. Without it then the rest can be re-interpreted to whatever the desires of TPTB.

Unless the state of Montana calls on its citizens to arm themselves and deputizes every citizen that is willing to walk into a federal building and seize it then this was nothing more than than a show.

I'm sure this was anticipated.

I'm sure the next phase would be the supreme court. That may take a few more years.

When it gets there the outcome will be the same.

Times running out Montana. They will call your bluff.

If you make a stand then I'm in the truck and on my way. If not then it is just more useless banter.

Fuck the supreme court, the patient will be dead by then. Deputize and if you'll do it, I'm on my way!

[madengr]

It's going to take some civil disobedience such as manufacturing supressors.

[james1906]

Advocating violence isn't a good thing.

http://tshirthell.vo.llnwd.net/e1/shirts/products/a597/a597_bm.gif

[Matt Collins]

It's going to take some civil disobedience such as manufacturing supressors.
What good does that do?

The courts will simply defer to the previous court's ruling and that's where it'll end. Nothing will be accomplished by that unless it's done en masse which I don't believe will happen.


I'm sure the next phase would be the supreme court. That may take a few more years.

When it gets there the outcome will be the same.

Times running out Montana. They will call your bluff.
Exactly. Going to the USSC would be a waste too. Dealing with the federal government's judiciary is a complete waste of time.

Unless the state government has the resolve to take this to the next level by arresting federal agents violating the MT law, then nothing else will come of it and it'll simply be another failed footnote in history.

[madengr]

It would start an ATF investigation and federal arrest operation, which the sheriff would have to deny. Somebody has to toss the shit into the fan.

[Scipio]

If you make a stand then I'm in the truck and on my way. If not then it is just more useless banter.

You and me both brother.

[Southron]

This is where you really need a state sanctioned militia. What leaders wouldn't be afraid without force to back them up?

[Icymudpuppy]

I am waiting to see the next step. I hope Montana has the guts to force this issue to a standoff and an alliance with other 10th Amendment states.

[Richard A Hamblen]

Where is the Montana legislature on this? They (like Tennessee) passed the Firearms Freedom Act, but are they willing to defend the law as passed? The MTSSA and any other private group can sue all they want, and lower courts will continue to deny them. But if the state files suit, then the USSC has original jurisdiction and must hear the case, and Montana can force a trial. So where is Montana? Or is Montana just another chicken hearted state which will pass legislation and resolutions with no intent of ever pushing enforcement? This will be a great question to ask the Republican candidate for governor of Tennessee on October 18 at the TFA meeting. And if the USSC declares the law null and void, what then my fellow countrymen?

[pcosmar]

This is where you really need a state sanctioned militia. What leaders wouldn't be afraid without force to back them up?

Actually, we need a "we the people" sanctioned militia. The state can either like it or change.
:(

[Matt Collins]

Where is the Montana legislature on this? They (like Tennessee) passed the Firearms Freedom Act, but are they willing to defend the law as passed? The MTSSA and any other private group can sue all they want, and lower courts will continue to deny them. But if the state files suit, then the USSC has original jurisdiction and must hear the case, and Montana can force a trial. So where is Montana? Or is Montana just another chicken hearted state which will pass legislation and resolutions with no intent of ever pushing enforcement? This will be a great question to ask the Republican candidate for governor of Tennessee on October 18 at the TFA meeting. And if the USSC declares the law null and void, what then my fellow countrymen?
This sounds like a good start to a new blog post for you ;) :p

[kahless]

There are just too many things we need to fight them on so why bother going to the Supreme Court to only lose more rights. They therefore should begin debating how to handle the transition towards total independence.

In doing so, to obtain the backing of the people, they could promote private solutions to replace federal programs. The first step being demanding the federal government return the Montana citizens portion of Social Security and provide the citizens a guide to retirement investment options.

[Koz]

I have a question, does the ATF and the DOJ recieve thier marching orders from the executive branch? If so, if someone who was a constitutionalist sat in the WH could they direct the ATF and DOJ to agree with the plaintiff?

I know Obam is in the WH and this won't happen with him there, but I was just curious.

[KCIndy]

I have a question, does the ATF and the DOJ recieve thier marching orders from the executive branch? If so, if someone who was a constitutionalist sat in the WH could they direct the ATF and DOJ to agree with the plaintiff?

I know Obam is in the WH and this won't happen with him there, but I was just curious.


Given the sort of unconstitutional "Executive Order" stunts that have been pulled by the last several inhabitants of the White House, I would imagine almost nothing would be off limits.

[agitator]

Ol
Advocating violence isn't a good thing.

You always struck me as a little pussy.

[amy31416]

Ol

You always struck me as a little pussy.

Zoiks!

[GunnyFreedom]

I think the best step is for Montana residents to demand clarification not from federal courts but from their state legislature. The clarification should be another law reaffirming the first one and explicitly empowering state law enforcement to arrest any ATF or other feds who interfere with gun manufacturers, sellers, and owners in Montana who are acting in accordance with state law. Montana residents need to demand this vocally and repeatedly from their representatives, and those legislators who voted for the first law should feel obligated to vote for this one as well. This can be another example proving what Federalist #78 says, which is that the court has neither force nor will, only judgment.


I agree.

Hear here.

[sailingaway]

The question is now as to the resolve of both the MT Governor and their legislature. How far are they willing to take this?


Are they willing to arrest any federal official who breaks their law? Or are they going to roll over and say "good fight but we lost this one"?

Will they make the stand, draw the line just to give them a taste, or will they capitulate like cowards?


It ultimately does come down to force.


Well, there is also the possibility of appeal.

[Pericles]

This is where you really need a state sanctioned militia. What leaders wouldn't be afraid without force to back them up?

This is why the state militias are necessary for the security of a free state. They are the enforcement mechanism.

[Matt Collins]

You always struck me as a little pussy.
That's because you are intellectually incapable. I never said I was a pacifist. :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Well, there is also the possibility of appeal.Can you appeal a denial? Or can you only appeal a conviction?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Can you appeal a denial?

Yes you appeal to your fellow citizens. Like I appealed to you earlier in the thread. What are you willing to personally defend?

We The People are the appeal. We The People are the final Grand Jury of truth.

[BenIsForRon]

It ultimately does come down to force.


Which is why Montana will win this thing if they stick to their guns (figuratively). The worst thing that will happen is some kind of a raid by ATF agents. All Montana has to say is, "No, you can't do that". You're not going to see the army invade Montana and arrest all gun owners or manufacturers.

So as long as Montana sticks up to the political pressure, they will be fine.

[Vessol]

Isn't there a clause in Montana's constitution that gives it the right to secede if the 2nd Amendment is violated?

[pcosmar]

This is a Federal Judge right?

I thought the whole point of this was to tell the Feds to shove it up their )*(

[Anti Federalist]

Isn't there a clause in Montana's constitution that gives it the right to secede if the 2nd Amendment is violated?

Republic of Montana
Second Amendment secession

http://reason.com/archives/2008/05/13/republic-of-montana

Radley Balko from the June 2008 issue

Several dozen Montana politicians, including Secretary of State Brad Johnson, have adopted an unconventional take on the Second Amendment case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court: They’ve threatened secession. D.C. v. Heller, the first substantive Second Amendment case the Court has heard in nearly 70 years, could definitively settle whether the right to bear arms is an individual right or a collective right.

In a joint resolution, the Montana politicians argue that when Washington approved the state constitution, including a clause granting “any person” the right to bear arms, upon the Treasure State’s entry into the Union in 1889, the federal government recognized that clause as consistent with the Second Amendment. If the Court comes down on the side of a collective right, they argue, it would breach the compact for statehood between Montana and the federal government.

“Some speak of a ‘living constitution,’ the meaning of which may evolve and change over time,” supporters of the resolution explain on their website. “However, the concept of a ‘living contract,’ one to be disregarded or revised at the whim of one party thereto, is unknown.” Therefore, they argue, “A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.” Said remedies include opting out of its breached compact with the federal government—in other words, seceding from the Union.

[fj45lvr]

Advocating violence isn't a good thing.


Are you speaking for Jews, post holocaust?? Or the zillions of other people abused and killed by TPTB as "examples"??


Your statement is totally false without adding the word "always" between "isn't" and "a".

Sometimes it is in fact a good thing if you actually need to protect yourself from abuse and evil given no alternative.

Advocate: To speak, plead, or argue in favor of

there are plenty of examples of men that pled, argued and spoke in favor of resistance and they have the enduring respect of many people here and others (even if they were the underdog peons)

[Matt Collins]

One legal scholar I know has said the following on the subject:

The Tenth Amendment doesn't give anyone power to enforce the Tenth Amendment. There needs to be amendment empowering the states to enforce the Tenth Amendment, whether by allowing a majority of legislatures to overrule Supreme Court decisions, individual citizens to have standing as taxpayers to enforce the Tenth Amendment in federal court, or in some other way. Firearms Freedom Acts and Tenth Amendment Resolutions are wastes of time.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

One legal scholar I know has said the following on the subject:

Must not be much of a scholar because We The People are the enforcer of the 10th Amendment. That is why there is a 2nd Amendment.

[aGameOfThrones]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[fedup100]

If they secede, I am going there.

[Acala]

When the right to secession was lost, the Constitution became unenforceable. It will never be enforced again until that right is restored. The Courts are a waste of time.

If the States are to resume their former role as a real check on Federal power, it will be by numbers, not by a single small state (population-wise) taking up arms. When one state says screw you to the Federal government, the Federal government will crack down. When ten states says screw you (as with medical MJ) the Federal government backs off a bit. If thirty states say screw you, the Federal Government will reverse itself because within that "screw you" is a realistic threat of secession.

So instead of chiding Montana for not throwing itself off the cliff alone, you might consider working to get YOUR state to stand along side Montana. That is the only way to make nullification work.

[lucius]

in montana...will be just fine...my shermans cool right?

m2 etc...

[lucius]

If they secede, I am going there.

they are way gone already...:D:cool::eek::)

[pcosmar]

Hmm,
What an interesting "coincidence".
MONTANA HAS IT RIGHT ON SECOND AMENDMENT
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin495.htm

Chuck Baldwin: Why We are Moving to Montana
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/09/chuck-baldwin-why-we-are-moving-to-montana/

I am not really a coincidence theorist.
:cool:

[Matt Collins]

When the right to secession was lost, the Constitution became unenforceable. It will never be enforced again until that right is restored. The Courts are a waste of time.The right of secession wasn't lost, the Declaration of Independence is still in effect, in fact it's even codified law. After all, the colonists had the right to secede from the British Empire didn't they?


If the States are to resume their former role as a real check on Federal power, it will be by numbers, not by a single small state (population-wise) taking up arms. When one state says screw you to the Federal government, the Federal government will crack down. When ten states says screw you (as with medical MJ) the Federal government backs off a bit. If thirty states say screw you, the Federal Government will reverse itself because within that "screw you" is a realistic threat of secession.I think it's all about the 17th Amendment.

[Acala]

The right of secession wasn't lost, the Declaration of Independence is still in effect, in fact it's even codified law. After all, the colonists had the right to secede from the British Empire didn't they?

We have no right to secession until one of two things happen: 1. the people who last used force to stop secession agree not to do that again or 2. the States do it anyway and the Federal government either doesn't try to do anything about it or tries and fails. Until then we have no real right to secession, just an argument.


I think it's all about the 17th Amendment.

The 17th amendment sucks, no doubt, and was part of the process of neutering the states. But we had already gone far down the road to failure be then.

[Matt Collins]

We have no right to secession until one of two things happen: 1. the people who last used force to stop secession agree not to do that again or 2. the States do it anyway and the Federal government either doesn't try to do anything about it or tries and fails. Until then we have no real right to secession, just an argument. No that right still exists as do all natural rights. But whether or not it's exercised is a different story.

[lucius]

Come all...just keep your powder dry...sovereign beings...all of us...bozeman....k?

[lucius]

I am 45k north east of great falls...k?

[LibForestPaul]

Advocating violence isn't a good thing.

And the ATF cares about non-violent advocating how? You obey, or they punish. You can not ignore, for they will punish.

[Acala]

No that right still exists as do all natural rights. But whether or not it's exercised is a different story.

I don't accept the idea of rights existing in the abstract. To a man alone on a desert island the concept of rights has no meaning. Explain your natural right to life to a griz that is about to swat your head off.

Rights exist only in the context of human relationships. Restraint by one toward the exercise of freedom by another is a right. If the one party does not recognize any obligation of restraint with respect to the other, then there ain't no rights involved. One of the parties might think he SHOULD have rights. But he doesn't. And all the talk about rights that are not actually recognized in the context of the relevant human relationships means nothing.

Don't want to go too far down this road as it is off topic, but that should suffice to justify my statement that there is no right to secession until it is recognized as an obligation of restraint by the other camp. Until then all you have is an argument as to why it SHOULD be a right. And by that definition, we lost the right to secession during the Civil War.

edit: and by the way, I very strongly believe that secession SHOULD be a right at every level. Only by universal secession rights can you truly maintain government by the consent of the governed.

[Noob]

Isn't there a clause in Montana's constitution that gives it the right to secede if the 2nd Amendment is violated?
That is part of Montana's compact.

[Noob]

Gov. Butch Otter, in a news release, denounced the Montana judge, saying his ruling yesterday overturning the “Idaho Firearms Freedom Act” and several other state laws that sought to end federal regulation of guns sales within states, combined with his wolf ruling, showed “a troubling pattern” and “disdain” for states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter, along with Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today to reverse U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy’s decision to restore federal protection for the fully recovered and thriving gray wolf populations in Idaho and Montana.

Idaho joins the state of Montana and U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in appealing the ruling by Molloy, who expressed his disdain for states’ 10th Amendment protections again on Thursday by finding a Montana gun rights law unconstitutional. Idaho also was involved on the side of Montana in that case, which argued for state freedom from federal gun control laws.

“We’re seeing a troubling pattern of behavior here, with Judge Molloy consistently ruling in support of federal control over our land, our resources and our way of life in the West,” Governor Otter said. “First he rules that our proven state management plan isn’t enough to free us from the carnage that wolves are doing to our ungulate herds and livestock. Now he rejects our freedom to regulate ourselves when it comes exercising our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Enough is enough.”

The Idaho Legislature passed, and Governor Otter signed, the Idaho Firearms Freedom Act last winter. It exempted from federal regulatory control any guns and gun-related paraphernalia manufactured, bought and used exclusively within Idaho’s borders.

Molloy found on Thursday that Congress has the authority to control firearms under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Governor Otter said that decision is consistent with Molloy’s wolf ruling, and together they highlight the lack of regard that the judge has for states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.

“We’re hopeful that we’ll find some relief from the appellate court,” he said. “But if not, we’ll keep fighting to protect our right to self-determination.”

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2010/oct/01/idaho-appeals-wolf-ruling-otter-criticizes-montana-judge/

[Matt Collins]

“we’re hopeful that we’ll find some relief from the appellate court,” he said. “but if not, we’ll keep fighting to protect our right to self-determination.”


how will he do so?

[Noob]

how will he do so?
I guest well just have to wait and see, mean while he is going to ban Spice. It seems that Idaho likes Federal money and yet likes to say they don't like the feds. How easy is it to run for office in TN? I can't seem to fine any info how you can do that in Idaho, other than you get kick of the ballot rather easy for over the stupidest things and that a lot of Idaho's lawmakers are running unopposed in their reelections.

[Pericles]

A well regulated state organized militia could provide a deterrent to federal encroachments on state retained rights not delegated to the federal government.

That is the enforcement mechanism the founders intended for the Constitution.

[Anti Federalist]

A well regulated state organized militia could provide a deterrent to federal encroachments on state retained rights not delegated to the federal government.

That is the enforcement mechanism the founders intended for the Constitution.

And there you have it.

After all the blarg blarg blarg, there it is.

You say "oh no, you don't".

The feds say, "oh yes, we are".

You have no option left but to stick a gun in their faces for a change and say "NO, you don't".

And if we are not prepared to do so, then everything is just meaningless, empty talk.

[Anti Federalist]

///

[Anti Federalist]

///

[Noob]

Gun control advocates who joined in the case welcomed the decision.

"We are pleased that the court rejected this dangerous, misguided and unconstitutional law," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. "It is already far too easy for dangerous people to get deadly weapons. There is no reason for Montana or other states to allow gun sales without the Brady background checks that help keep guns away from criminals."

http://www.havredailynews.com/cms/news/state_headlines/story-192311.html

[ChaosControl]

because the commerce clause grants Congress the power to regulate firearms.
This judge is an idiot who doesn't have a clue about the constitution.

[tpreitzel]

I distinctly remember Governor Schweitzer threaten to initiate the possibility of seceding from the union over this issue.

[Philhelm]

Gun control advocates who joined in the case welcomed the decision.

"It is already far too easy for dangerous people to get deadly weapons."

Like government law enforcement, for instance.

[Dianne]

The federal government owns judges, but has no real power. The people are the power... f..... the federal government. They don't own me or my state.

Feds have no power... it is we the people who have all the power. The feds are our employees, although worthless as they are; we hired them; now let's fire them.

[torchbearer]

i do not believe the federal courts should have anything to say about state laws. those should be handled by state courts.

[malkusm]

To the extent that the state law conflicts with federal gun laws and regulations, federal law trumps the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, the ATF explained.

Marbut and other gun-rights advocates argued that this answer violates the 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government's authority to the powers specifically outlined in the Constitution.

Not only does the federal government not have the power to regulate firearms, it is specifically PROHIBITED from doing so via the 2nd Amendment. The explanation is so unbelievably far from Constitutional government....

[malkusm]

I distinctly remember Governor Schweitzer threaten to initiate the possibility of seceding from the union over this issue.

YouTube? Link? Source?

I've been saying for a while that Ron should adopt this guy as his running mate on a bi-partisan 2012 ticket ;)

[osan]

WACO?

No.

WACKO.

[osan]

I think the best step is for Montana residents to demand clarification not from federal courts but from their state legislature. The clarification should be another law reaffirming the first one and explicitly empowering state law enforcement to arrest any ATF or other feds who interfere with gun manufacturers, sellers, and owners in Montana who are acting in accordance with state law. Montana residents need to demand this vocally and repeatedly from their representatives, and those legislators who voted for the first law should feel obligated to vote for this one as well. This can be another example proving what Federalist #78 says, which is that the court has neither force nor will, only judgment.

This would seem to be good thinking.

I don't understand why they would go to federal court in the first place. It lends legitimacy to the feds where they have none.

[osan]

Advocating violence isn't a good thing.

At some point one has to shit or get off the pot.

[tpreitzel]

YouTube? Link? Source?

I've been saying for a while that Ron should adopt this guy as his running mate on a bi-partisan 2012 ticket ;)

You WOULD have to ask that question. ;)

It's been awhile, but Schweitzer made the statement in connection with the guarantee of 2nd amendment rights being a condition of Montana's entrance into the union. I've looked for it in the past without success, but his remarks should be out there. Personally, I don't much time to look into it at the moment. Anyone else remember Schweitzer making a similar remark and do you have access to a source?

[Pericles]

I distinctly remember Governor Schweitzer threaten to initiate the possibility of seceding from the union over this issue.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/25/montanans-insist-on-gun-rights/

[tpreitzel]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/25/montanans-insist-on-gun-rights/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/25/montanans-insist-on-gun-rights/)

Thank you, commander.

[puppetmaster]

lol...lets see if Montana cares what the feds say.....btw, I will support Montana if they choose wisely!

[Matt Collins]

Let me clarify... the initiation of the use of force (coercion) is never a good thing.

[Philhelm]

Let me clarify... the initiation of the use of force (coercion) is never a good thing.

The only initiation, or the threat of initiation, of force is from the national government.

[fj45lvr]

Let me clarify... the initiation of the use of force (coercion) is never a good thing.


I'd say we would all agree that Montana in defiance of whatever some federal judge says should go ahead with what they determine for themselves as this is not a federal issue.

If the Feds decide to swoop in and try to "arrest" scores of people what do you think is reasonable to deal with that scenario?

You have to know that the feds are going to AMBUSH of course. Hopefully, they don't fly in and out with "black helicopters" so that the sheriff and his posse could "cut em off" on the ground before crossing out of Montana.

[DamianTV]

This needs to go to the Supreme Court, and Montana needs to win.

[jazzloversinc]

I thought the idea of nullifiction was to ignore non constitutional laws that over reach to the states. That will have to be upheld by the governor, state legislatures, state attorneys and sheriffs. Why even bother with the stupid courts? Just do not inforce the bad laws.

[erowe1]

I thought the idea of nullifiction was to ignore non constitutional laws that over reach to the states. That will have to be upheld by the governor, state legislatures, state attorneys and sheriffs. Why even bother with the stupid courts? Just do not inforce the bad laws.

Yeah, that is the point. The problem is, you have different enforcement entities, some with the state, and others, like the BATF with the federal government. What we have here is those federal law enforcement officers disregarding the state's attempt to nullify the federal law and continuing to enforce it. If it weren't for that, then the state law enforcement would do just what you said. But with the feds imposing themselves this way, the state can't stop them just by ignoring them. The state has to do something active to stop them, or else the de facto result will be the state law being overturned by the feds.

[Pericles]

Yeah, that is the point. The problem is, you have different enforcement entities, some with the state, and others, like the BATF with the federal government. What we have here is those federal law enforcement officers disregarding the state's attempt to nullify the federal law and continuing to enforce it. If it weren't for that, then the state law enforcement would do just what you said. But with the feds imposing themselves this way, the state can't stop them just by ignoring them. The state has to do something active to stop them, or else the de facto result will be the state law being overturned by the feds.

It is difficult to ignore people with automatic weapons.

[erowe1]

It is difficult to ignore people with automatic weapons.

I assume the people with automatic weapons you mean are the BATF.

In which case, difficult for whom? Difficult for the gun shop owners who are getting arrested by them? Or difficult for the state law enforcement?

I'd say it's very difficult for the poor gun shop owners whom they're arresting to ignore them. But that's not the point.

The point is that it's very easy for the state and the state law enforcement to ignore them, by simply staying out of their way. In fact, that's the easiest and most likely thing for them to do here. That's what California did when the DEA shut down their marijuana dispensaries, and it's what usually happens. If that's what happens here, then, as I said, it will be a de facto overturning of the Montana law.

So the state doing nothing, and simply not enforcing the unconstitutional federal law, while the feds are still enforcing it, is not a solution.

[Stary Hickory]

Really Federal judges are a joke. And it's really time we just stopped caring what they said in general. They are the federal government and they will always side with their masters in DC.