Montana Firearms Freedom Act Overturned by 9th Circuit Court

[Matt Collins]

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/10-36094.pdf

[Keith and stuff]

States within the 9th Circuit Court jurisdiction.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/images/CircuitMap_01.jpg

Case: MONT. SHOOTING SPORTS ASS’N V. HOLDER

Before the case:

After the passage of the MFFA, the Federal Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”)
distributed an “Open Letter to All Montana Federal Firearm Licensees.” The letter stated that the MFFA conflicts with
federal firearms laws, and that federal law supersedes the Act
and continues to apply. Marbut subsequently sent a letter to
the ATF, asking whether he could manufacture firearms and
ammunition under the MFFA without complying with federal
statutes and without fear of criminal prosecution. In response,
an ATF special agent wrote to Marbut that “unlicensed
manufacturing of firearms of ammunition for sale . . . is a
violation of Federal law and could lead to . . . potential
criminal prosecution.”

The court found:

Under Raich and Stewart, the regulation of the Montana
Buckaroo is within Congress’s commerce power. Marbut
intends to manufacture the Buckaroo under the Montana
Firearms Freedom Act, which means that he will manufacture
and sell it within the borders of Montana. See Mont. Code
Ann. § 30-20-104. But even if Marbut never sells the
Buckaroo outside of Montana, Congress could rationally
conclude that unlicensed firearms would make their way into
the interstate market. This result does not change because the
Buckaroo will bear a “Made in Montana” stamp to
distinguish it from firearms that may be sold in the interstate
market. See id. § 30-20-106. Congress might reasonably
determine that a “Made in Montana” stamp will not deter
those seeking to purchase unregistered firearms in the
interstate black market. See Stewart, 451 F.3d at 1077–78
(rejecting the argument that homemade machine guns were
“unique” and so would not affect the market for commercial
machine guns, noting that “those seeking [machine guns] care
only whether the guns work effectively”).


Congress could have rationally concluded that the
manufacture of unlicensed firearms, even if initially sold only
within the State of Montana, would in the aggregate
substantially affect the interstate market for firearms. Under
Raich and Stewart, that is enough to place the Buckaroo
within reach of the long arm of federal law. Because the
MFFA purports to dictate to the contrary, see Mont. Code
Ann. 30-20-104 (providing that conduct conforming to the
MFFA is “not subject to federal law or federal regulation”),
it is necessarily preempted and invalid. See Arizona v. Inter
Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247, 2254 (2013)
(explaining that, to the extent a state law conflicts with
federal law, “the state law . . . ceases to be operative”
(internal quotation mark omitted)).


VI. Conclusion
Though we conclude that plaintiff Gary Marbut has
standing, we affirm the dismissal of the action for failure to
state a claim.

AFFIRMED.
BEA, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I fully agree with the majority’s conclusion that Gary
Marbut is subject to federal licensing laws. Gonzales v.
Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and United States v. Stewart,
451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006), foreclose Marbut’s argument
that Congress does not have the authority under the
Commerce Clause to regulate the manufacture of unlicensed
firearms, even if they are manufactured and initially sold
within Montana only...

[TaftFan]

Ignore the court.

[Pericles]

No surprise there. The only hope there was of striking a blow for liberty was the state AG to sue the feds then the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction and has to hear it. The Kennedy vote would be interesting.

[nobody's_hero]

I hate to say it, but if regulation of interstate commerce could be twisted into controlling people who don't buy health insurance, then a gun-rights law didn't stand much chance at the Federal court level.

The only question now is whether Montana is willing to ignore this court decision.

[Anti Federalist]

I hate to say it, but if regulation of interstate commerce could be twisted into controlling people who don't buy health insurance, then a gun-rights law didn't stand much chance at the Federal court level.

The only question now is whether Montana is willing to ignore this court decision.

This.

Of course FedCoat courts were going to decide in favor of FedCoat authority.

So all that remains to be seen is that: will Montana defy them?

[FloralScent]

This.

Of course FedCoat courts were going to decide in favor of FedCoat authority.

So all that remains to be seen is that: will Montana defy them?

If they don't, then passing the law in the first place was nothing but show.

[Keith and stuff]

The only question now is whether Montana is willing to ignore this court decision.

It would take a lot more than ignoring the court decision. Now, someone has to be found that wants to make MT firearms if Gary Marbut will not. Then the BATFE has to steal all of Gary's stuff or put him in jail. But, MT would need to know about that before it happens and threaten to arrest BATFE against or something similar to prevent. Oh MT could track down the firearms after they were taken by the federal government and take them using guns pointed at BATFE agents or something similar. Just ignoring the court decision by itself, doesn't do anything to help protect the MT FFA.

Note how the court decision also reminds WA that according to the federal government, the new marijuana legalization law is superseded by federal law.

[Anti Federalist]

If they don't, then passing the law in the first place was nothing but show.

Well, yes, essentially.

Like Keith noted, the marijuana laws at the state level are null and void as well, according to the FedCoats.

So, what next boyos?

[Christian Liberty]

If I was Montana's state governor I'd put bounties on the head of every Federal agent within the borders and issue letters of marque and reprisal.

Kick them all out.

[jclay2]

If I was Montana's state governor I'd put bounties on the head of every Federal agent within the borders and issue letters of marque and reprisal.

Kick them all out.

I like the way you think.

[Xenliad]

If I was Montana's state governor I'd put bounties on the head of every Federal agent within the borders and issue letters of marque and reprisal.

Kick them all out.

You'd have my vote. How much is each bounty?

[Christian Liberty]

You'd have my vote. How much is each bounty?

I'm not sure how much money Montana has on hand. And unfortunately, I don't live in Montana:p

[torchbearer]

illegitimate court of an illegitimate government.
abolish.

[american.swan]

Look, this gun law is the wrong way to fight for the 10th amendment. Why? Because it could easily put some law abiding Montana citizen in jail. A much better way to fight this would be to have Montana law make some Federal Regulation illegal. Put the Federal Agent in jail for not following state law and make the Feds fight for his/her release rather than fighting to release a Montana citizen. The Federal Court will order the release of the Federal Agent under Federal Law. Don't release the dude at all. At which point, Montana needs to promptly, same day, arrest another Federal Agent claiming the 10th Amendment. That will send the clear signal that Federal B.S. law means nothing to Montana.

The Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Feds. Release no one.

Here's the key trick. How many Federal agents working in Montana are actually NOT from Montana? I'm going to guess quite a few Federal Agents are born in Montana. Have the "arrests" be a fraud. The Federal Agents will swear their fellow agent were arrested, but in reality, they were just hidden and put into some sort of witness protection program, names changed and "released" secretly as Montana 10th amendment sympathizers. The Feds will be seeking release of Montana sympathizers who aren't in jail.

This could lead to a civil war, but this route is far better for some innocent family man rotting in Federal Jail in some other state Montana doesn't have jurisdiction over.

[AFPVet]

The Commerce Clause is all the feds have over the states in this context. It's funny how they misconstrue it so well in order to fit their agenda. They love to overreach.

[Anti Federalist]

The Commerce Clause is all the feds have over the states in this context. It's funny how they misconstrue it so well in order to fit their agenda. They love to overreach.

Wickard v. Filburn.

The SCROTUS declared that the FedCoats have the right to regulate everything, even not engaging in commerce, under the Commerce Clause.

[eduardo89]

The Kennedy vote would be interesting.

Kennedy is a coward and a traitor, not only to the Constitution but to his faith.

[bolil]

I'm not sure how much money Montana has on hand. And unfortunately, I don't live in Montana:p

Thanks to certain measures taken collecting and saving portions of money, Montana's state government is FLUSH because they were responsible with their tax money.
This is bad, look at the centers? That is like 600 miles. I see what they meant when they said : "He has called together legislative bodies at place unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."

"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world" (Iran, North Korea, Cuba, et al.)

"For imposing taxes on us without our Consent"

Wow, the list goes on and so do the similarities.

[supermario21]

The Commerce Clause reasoning was struck down under Obamacare. In fact, it was pretty heavily restricted.

[Christian Liberty]

Thanks to certain measures taken collecting and saving portions of money, Montana's state government is FLUSH because they were responsible with their tax money.
This is bad, look at the centers? That is like 600 miles. I see what they meant when they said : "He has called together legislative bodies at place unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."

"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world" (Iran, North Korea, Cuba, et al.)

"For imposing taxes on us without our Consent"

Wow, the list goes on and so do the similarities.

The bounties would be as high as they needed to be to ensure that no Federal agent, no matter what their job (Whether IRS, FBI, TSA, doesn't matter) could feel safe in Montana:p

[DamianTV]

So much for the 9th and 10th amendments.

[aGameOfThrones]

The court found:



Under Raich and Stewart, the regulation of the Montana
Buckaroo is within Congress’s commerce power. Marbut
intends to manufacture the Buckaroo under the Montana
Firearms Freedom Act, which means that he will manufacture
and sell it within the borders of Montana. See Mont. Code
Ann. § 30-20-104. But even if Marbut never sells the
Buckaroo outside of Montana, Congress could rationally
conclude that unlicensed firearms would make their way into
the interstate market. This result does not change because the
Buckaroo will bear a “Made in Montana” stamp to
distinguish it from firearms that may be sold in the interstate
market. See id. § 30-20-106. Congress might reasonably
determine that a “Made in Montana” stamp will not deter
those seeking to purchase unregistered firearms in the
interstate black market. See Stewart, 451 F.3d at 1077–78
(rejecting the argument that homemade machine guns were
“unique” and so would not affect the market for commercial
machine guns, noting that “those seeking [machine guns] care
only whether the guns work effectively”).

Congress could have rationally concluded that the
manufacture of unlicensed firearms, even if initially sold only
within the State of Montana, would in the aggregate
substantially affect the interstate market for firearms. Under
Raich and Stewart, that is enough to place the Buckaroo
within reach of the long arm of federal law. Because the
MFFA purports to dictate to the contrary, see Mont. Code
Ann. 30-20-104 (providing that conduct conforming to the
MFFA is “not subject to federal law or federal regulation”),
it is necessarily preempted and invalid. See Arizona v. Inter
Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247, 2254 (2013)
(explaining that, to the extent a state law conflicts with
federal law, “the state law . . . ceases to be operative”
(internal quotation mark omitted)).





John Taylor (1753—1824) Found:


Roads are necessary in war; therefore congress may legislate locally concerning roads. Victuals, manufactures, and a certain state of national manners, are more necessary in war; therefore congress may legislate locally, concerning agriculture, manufactures and manners. The favour of the Deity is more necessary than either; therefore congress may provide salaries for priests of all denominations, in order to obtain it, without infringing the constitutional prohibition against an establishment; or they may incorporate sects, and exempt them from taxation. Roads are more necessary for collecting taxes than even banks. Taverns are very necessary or convenient for the officers of the army, congress themselves, the conveyance of the mail, and the accommodation of judges. But horses are undoubtedly more necessary for the conveyance of the mail and for war, than roads, which may be as convenient to assailants as defenders; and therefore the principle of an implied power of legislation, will certainly invest congress with a legislative power over horses. In short, this mode of construction completely establishes the position, that congress may pass any internal law whatsoever in relation to things, because there is nothing with which, war, commerce and taxation may not be closely or remotely connected.

..

[Matt Collins]

Ignore the court.

The only question now is whether Montana is willing to ignore this court decision.



Not going to happen since the former AG is now the Governor, and Democrats now control Montana. Montana has become very liberal (respectively) since the MFFA was passed. Many Californians left their craphole state and moved to other states, such as Montana. They are overrun with them now. It's an infestation.