Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law Executive Summary – The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY. The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana. The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal – confiscation of privately owned firearms. Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it. Important Points – If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA. Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors. Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back. Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters. There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana. Discussion – Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA. The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same with the USA. Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not. Text of the New Law HOUSE BILL NO. 246 INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA: Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act". Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following: (1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889. (2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889. (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition. (4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889. Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply: (1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution. (2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination. (3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins. (4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials. Section 4. Prohibitions. 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 to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana. 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. Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame. Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6]. Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.
I'm sure he has. I saw something a week or so back that indicates that there are 20-odd states with similar legislation in the mill that will emphasize that the states are telling the feds to KYMFHO the state's prerogatives. I have not confirmed it yet. Lookin' like some fur is getting ready to fly. Souter's replacement might have to deal with it. Edit to add: "Honored States such as Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington have introduced or passed Resolutions to assert their reserved respective rights guaranteed them by the Bill of Rights contained within the United States Constitution." Add Florida to the list. I lifted the above quote from http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2051952 dated 04/01/09. Hope it isn't an April Fool's joke.
getting interesting. i freaked out at all the klinton era gun laws,i think people are going to have something to say about this...i hope so.
Yep. That is a pre-existing federal law that I don't think they can legally overturn because it would be seen as over-riding something they previously allowed to happen. Much tougher fight, maybe later. What will be interesting is when a Montana made rifle turns up in (say) New Jersey.
The same bill has been introduced into the Texas House by my local rep. Leo Berman. http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090428/NEWS01/904280322/0/SEARCH Posted on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 Bill Limits Gun Regulation <!----> By ROY MAYNARD Editorial Page Editor A bill by state Rep. Leo Berman exempting Texas-made firearms, gun accessories and ammunition sold within the state from federal regulation and law -- including registration -- was heard in a House committee on Monday. The bill also provides for the Texas Attorney General's office to defend Texans who run afoul of the federal government because of this law. Berman, a Tyler Republican who has pushed several "states' rights" measures this legislative session, said his bill would affect more than 300 manufacturers in the state. "Under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, states have responsibility for regulating intrastate commerce," Berman said. "The federal government has no role." Worse, he said, the federal government would like to increase regulations. "With the appointment of Eric Holder as U.S. attorney general, we have the most anti-Second Amendment attorney general in the history of the nation," Berman said. "What we're saying with this is there are some guns not subject to federal regulation. We have guns and gun accessories and ammunition here that are not subject to their regulation." Berman said the bill has the support of the National Rifle Association and the Texas State Rifle Association. Contacted on Monday, the Texas State Rifle Association's Alice Tripp did not comment. Berman said his bill could also spark economic development. "This gun bill will invite new industry into Texas, that will take advantage of intra-state commerce," Berman said. "We're talking about gun manufacturers, gun accessory manufacturers, and ammunition reloaders." Montana passed a similar bill earlier this month, and a court challenge is expected when the law goes into effect in October. "It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," said Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat. Opponents there warn the law could result in gun purchases with no criminal background checks. Tyler attorney and gun rights advocate Sean Healy said Berman's effort is commendable. "I applaud Leo's effort to put the federal government in its place," Healy said. "Americans have been conditioned for decades to accept Washington's meddling in their lives. We have grown complacent, and we accept most new restrictions without batting an eye. As a result, Washington has gotten used to doing whatever it wants." That applies to sweeping federal regulation of firearms, he added. "I think Leo is right about the Constitution," he said. "The founders intended for the federal government to have the powers specifically given to it in the Constitution, and the states and the people to keep the power to do everything else." Still, the bill could end up putting the state on a collision course with the federal courts. "The only problem I see with Leo's bill is the provisions requiring the state to pay for its citizens to fight the federal government," Healy said. "That could cost the taxpayers a lot of money fighting a losing battle." Berman's bill was left pending in committee, as is usual following committee hearings. It could be voted on as soon as next week. On Wednesday, another House committee will hear a bill by Berman that would place an 8 percent surcharge on all money wired by illegal immigrants to Mexico and Central and South America. Berman said the bill would generate $480 million yearly. The revenue would be earmarked for hospitals, which he says bear the burden of providing health care for uninsured illegal immigrants and for border security. <!--Begin Reader Comments--> <script language="JavaScript"> var userLoggedIn = false; var userID = ; var userLevel = 0; var userName = ""; var userVerified = false; var userIP = "Unknown"; </script>
Didja.... ( I know, a tin foil hat thingy....) But,... Didja ever wonder,....... 'what 'is really happening here? I mean, I was reading a "few" of the states that are metioned, the House and Senate bills to the tenth amendments.....And it struck me as odd..... "IF", (catch the quotes marks there!), "IF" a "party" was interested in creating discord, and 'possibly' even the dissolution of the United States, what a better way could anyone think of? I see there is talk of "secession" amongst some.... This bears watching closely, not just due to the 2nd and 10th amendments mind you, but the entire Country, being at risk of being 'manipulated' into a self destruct mode? (ok, I won't mention it again...I promise!) Where there's smoke,..... there's fire!
