MT vs. The Fed

[poak]

Looks like MT is going to court.

Missoula gun rights group will challenge feds over Montana Firearms Freedom Act

By JENNIFER MCKEE of the Missoulian State Bureau | Posted: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:15 am

A prominent Missoula-based gun rights group has partnered with a national organization to test federal authority over a new class of firearms: guns manufactured and used solely in the state of Montana.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association, headquartered in Missoula, and the Second Amendment Foundation, of Bellevue, Wash., announced Monday they intend to file suit on Oct. 1 to prevent federal gun control laws from being enforced in Montana for guns made and used within the state's boundaries.

"If a gun is made in Montana and stays in Montana, it isn't engaging in interstate commerce," said Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation. "The federal government really should bug out."

At issue is the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which passed the 2009 Legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Brian Schweitzer. That law states that guns, ammunition and certain gun parts manufactured and used in Montana are not subject to federal gun laws.

The law goes into effect Oct. 1. Several other states are considering identical legislation, although so far only Tennessee has passed a similar measure.

Currently, individuals and businesses that sell or manufacture most guns must have a federal license.

Missoula resident Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said that licensure is about control.

"Whenever there is licensure, there is control. That's the purpose of licensure," he said. "We don't think the source of those items that are essential to our Second Amendment freedoms should be controlled by the federal government."

Scot Thomasson, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, declined to comment for this story.

However, the agency sent letters to all federal gun license holders in the state last month. That letter stated that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act did not nullify federal gun regulations.

"All provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act and their corresponding regulations continue to apply," according to the letter, which was signed by Carson Carroll, assistant director of the ATF in Washington, D.C. "These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions, continue to apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition has crossed state lines."

That the guns and ammo not be used outside Montana is important, Gottlieb said. So far, the federal government has justified federal control over guns by citing the "interstate commerce clause," which states that the federal government can regulate commerce between the states.

But if a gun will not be leaving Montana, there is no "interstate commerce" and the federal government has no standing to enforce its laws, Gottlieb said.

Marbut said he'll planning to file suit in Montana federal court the day the law goes into effect. He said he's received letters from Montanans interested in making their own guns, but who aren't sure the new law will protect them from federal prison time.

Those people, Marbut said, are the "test case." He's anticipating the suit will seek to prevent the ATF from enforcing federal laws. Marbut said he didn't want any Montanans to have to go to federal prison in order to test the legal arguments behind the Firearms Freedom Act.

In the meantime, he said, please don't make a gun.

"We are continuing to highly recommend to Montana people that nobody make one of these Montana devices until we can clarify these legal issues in court," he said. "We don't want some Montana citizens to face potential federal prison time."

The law states that the gun must be machined in Montana; people couldn't simply assemble a gun here from parts they bought out of state.

Marbut said gun laws ought to be made and enforced by the states.

"We would prefer that if there's going to be regulation (of guns) that it done at the state level in a way that is consistent with our people and our culture in Montana," he said. "We don't need the kinds of regulation that New Jersey may need or that California may need."

[Guest HexHead]

Good for them!!! Some TN organization should support them as well.

[poak]

Good for them!!! Some TN organization should support them as well.

Yeah, I'd like to see a large coalition of pro-2A organizations financing this thing. Hopefully some good precedent will be set.

[Metalhead]

To whom and where can I send these people some money?

[Guest SUNTZU]

Ladies and Gentlemen....WELcome....to the MAIN EVENT!

[memphismason]

A big +1 for them.

[poak]

To whom and where can I send these people some money?

There's a PayPal link on their homepage designated for their political efforts"

Montana Shooting Sports Association

Here's SAF's memberships and donations page:

Second Amendment Foundation Online

[Guest canynracer]

Those people, Marbut said, are the "test case." He's anticipating the suit will seek to prevent the ATF from enforcing federal laws. Marbut said he didn't want any Montanans to have to go to federal prison in order to test the legal arguments behind the Firearms Freedom Act

That is awesome!!! at least someone is standing up! TN should get in on this!!!

[Guest FroggyOne2]

There's a PayPal link on their homepage designated for their political efforts"

Montana Shooting Sports Association

Here's SAF's memberships and donations page:

Second Amendment Foundation Online

I wish that they were using some other form of payment channel instead of that dang paypal gun hatin liberal lovin outfit.

[Guest TurboniumOxide]

Donated. Give em hell.

[Fallguy]

Wish them the best of luck!!

[Punisher84]

Can't believe nobody has come in here to post something negative yet. Give 'em hell Montana!!!

[Guest bkelm18]

I have a feeling it's going to be a long and bloody fight, but I wish them the best of luck.

[nightrunner]

WTF is Missoula

[Guest bkelm18]

A city.

[Guest Constitution-in-exile]

Challenging federal gun laws on Tenth Amendment grounds is still conceding that the Feds have the authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The proper challenge is on Second Amendment grounds. Read the history of the Bill of Rights, and especially the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Bet you didn't even know it had one, did you? I certainly wasn't taught it in the government schools, and I imagine most of you weren't either. It says in part that Congress and the States decided that

***in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers*** further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added***

among them that "the right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed". This effectively removes "arms" from any restriction to be found in any prior clause of the Constitution, including the Commerce Clause and the Taxing Authority. The only way the Federal Government can legitimately assume authority over "arms" is by a Constitutional amendment, not by brute force as they have done so far. Has there been such an amendment?

Remember:

"an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it .... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177)

But if you take a principled stand, be ready for a rough ride. I know. See Hamblen vs. United States eSnips Folder .

[nightrunner]

Oh, my bad.

[Moped]

In Montana. That's a state out west bordering Canada.

[tntnixon]

Challenging federal gun laws on Tenth Amendment grounds is still conceding that the Feds have the authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The proper challenge is on Second Amendment grounds. Read the history of the Bill of Rights, and especially the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Bet you didn't even know it had one, did you? I certainly wasn't taught it in the government schools, and I imagine most of you weren't either. It says in part that Congress and the States decided that

***in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers*** further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added***

among them that "the right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed". This effectively removes "arms" from any restriction to be found in any prior clause of the Constitution, including the Commerce Clause and the Taxing Authority. The only way the Federal Government can legitimately assume authority over "arms" is by a Constitutional amendment, not by brute force as they have done so far. Has there been such an amendment?

Remember:

"an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it .... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177)

But if you take a principled stand, be ready for a rough ride. I know. See Hamblen vs. United States eSnips Folder .

I'm with you. My understanding has always been that an amendment changes the constitution. Therefore an amendment, in this case the second, changes all other artcles and clauses that would prevent that amendment from coming to fruition. Why is this argument never made?

[Guest redbarron06]

I'm with you. My understanding has always been that an amendment changes the constitution. Therefore an amendment, in this case the second, changes all other artcles and clauses that would prevent that amendment from coming to fruition. Why is this argument never made?

Why is the arguement never made that imposing a special tax is "infringing". I dont know why some of the most simple and obvious arguments are never made.