Montana to Feds: We Don't Want Your Gun Control (Montana Gun Law Mega Thread)

[Coyote33]

Let's see: Massachusetts has S&W, Kahr, and NEF.

There must be more I'm missing.

 

[Monty]

Let's see: Massachusetts has S&W, Kahr, and NEF.

There must be more I'm missing.

Savage.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Let's see: Massachusetts has S&W, Kahr, and NEF.

There must be more I'm missing.

Savage.

Not to mention post 28:

However, none of these bills in any state - including Montana - are crafted to affect federally licensed manufacturers/SOTs. New, legal "in state only" guns would have to be produced by companies that do not yet exist.

 

[Beansie_Time]

However, none of these bills in any state - including Montana - are crafted to affect federally licensed manufacturers/SOTs. New, legal "in state only" guns would have to be produced by companies that do not yet exist.

What about individuals? Under these bills/laws could one make their own suppressor? Or make their own SBR or SBS?

 

[Prepper]

IANAL, but I don't see why the local gun manufacturers in MT would have to make everything from scratch in-state. For example, I would guess that some sort of iron ore or alloy would be required. That is used for many purposes and can come from out of state. The laws that applied when it came in as iron ore were presumably met, and the product is sitting in the state. What happens from then on with the material is no one's business in the fed gov. I don't see how this "regulate interstate trade" thing would apply to it anymore.

If I had any say in the matter, I'd encourage entrepreneurs to start manufacturing guns in that state, and say screw you to any fed types that try to complain otherwise. If the state backs them up, what is the fed going to do? Send an army out against MT (well maybe they would)?

Yes, I'm aware of the absurd liberal argument that since everything is one giant system, everything affects everything else somehow, so everything affects interstate trade and can then be regulated. Thus preventing in-state gun manufacturers. Well, I don't buy that... and I'm sure the founding fathers never intended that clause to give the gov't ultimate control.

 

[lupis42]

Yes, I'm aware of the absurd liberal argument that since everything is one giant system, everything affects everything else somehow, so everything affects interstate trade and can then be regulated.

Of course everything affects everything else. But...

Thus preventing in-state gun manufacturers. Well, I don't buy that... and I'm sure the founding fathers never intended that clause to give the gov't ultimate control.

Here's the money shot. It doesn't matter. The interstate commerce clause has been expanded way beyond it's original intent by courts that, for whatever reason, felt that centralization of government was the way the system was intended.

 

[Navy Moose]

"I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me"

Great quote from "Hunt for Red October"

 

[mikem317]

However, none of these bills in any state - including Montana - are crafted to affect federally licensed manufacturers/SOTs. New, legal "in state only" guns would have to be produced by companies that do not yet exist.

That's not true.

Existing firearms manufacturers could make their wares inside Montana, sell them to Montana distributors, and then the distributors could sell them to retailers.

If the retail buyer keeps them in the state, then the whole thing would not violate the interstate commerce clause, as I see it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If the retail buyer keeps them in the state, then the whole thing would not violate the interstate commerce clause, as I see it.

How you see it doesn't count, only a court's view does . My guess is the courts will hold that in so far as the raw materials moved in interstate commerce, the guns are subject to federal regulation.

 

[cekim]

My guess is the courts will hold that in so far as the raw materials moved in interstate commerce, the guns are subject to federal regulation.

Indeed - heck lately, the courts would rule that if it reduced sales in other states by slowing interstate sales, that its interstate...

 

[Gadsden]

Indeed - heck lately, the courts would rule that if it reduced sales in other states by slowing interstate sales, that its interstate...

Let's face it, the courts are going to do what the federal government wants, whether it is right or not. They can say electricity to power the machinery, water to water the crops, or even the damned air the workers breathe comes from somewhere else. State's rights are a g*ddamn myth.

 

[mikem317]

How you see it doesn't count, only a court's view does . My guess is the courts will hold that in so far as the raw materials moved in interstate commerce, the guns are subject to federal regulation.

But using that framework, you could constitute anything as interstate commerce.

 

[Len-2A Training]

But using that framework, you could constitute anything as interstate commerce.

That's the whole idea!!

 

[Maj. Boom Boom]

I've seen your van, dude.

ummm is that good or bad? before you answer, remember i did it for a child.

and you didn't introduce yourself?

I'm thinking you raise some rabbits, chop off their head once they get nice & fat, & throw them in the pot with some veggies.

ohhh i thought you were making rabbits...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

But using that framework, you could constitute anything as interstate commerce.

Exactly, and that's what the feds have been doing for years.

 

[Jamie]

That was a great line.

I love Montana. I will live there again someday, & maybe even marry a round American man to cook homemade rabbits for.

I'm going to start pigging out now then.

 

[Auspicious Aspect]

That's not true.

Existing firearms manufacturers could make their wares inside Montana, sell them to Montana distributors, and then the distributors could sell them to retailers.

If the retail buyer keeps them in the state, then the whole thing would not violate the interstate commerce clause, as I see it.

Sorry, but you are mistaken.

I have had some input into two of the three NH bills being filed on this, and prior to that I spoke at length with the gentleman who kicked the whole thing off in MT, and then I spoke with some of the people who wrote the versions in other states. Everyone is in agreement that this bill does not affect current, licensed manufacturers/SOTs.

The reason is that ATF gets to regulate the activities of a licensee. So, while this law would allow them to manufacture certain firearms to the given state standards, ATF could still hold them to the federal standards. The only way to have a chance for this to succeed in court is to have a case involving completely "clean" firearms, that is, firearms that are made to the state standard, by a manufacturer that does not hold a federal license.

 

[Coyote33]

So, can't they just start a subsidiary for that purpose? That, or shut down the company and start a new one? Some of those companies are not that big to begin with.

 

[Lynne]

"I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me"

I loved that line.

 

[konajoe]

http://www.firearmsfreedomact.org

Way too much red out our way.

 

[K-DUB]

ummm is that good or bad? before you answer, remember i did it for a child.

and you didn't introduce yourself?

I wasn't there...there were some pics of people in the parking lot. If I was there, I'd have said hi!

 

[levergun]

After I get out of the navy, I hope to move to Montana, buy a ranch, marry a hot country girl....... And buy a ton of non MA legal guns.

 

[mikem317]

Sorry, but you are mistaken.

I have had some input into two of the three NH bills being filed on this, and prior to that I spoke at length with the gentleman who kicked the whole thing off in MT, and then I spoke with some of the people who wrote the versions in other states. Everyone is in agreement that this bill does not affect current, licensed manufacturers/SOTs.

The reason is that ATF gets to regulate the activities of a licensee. So, while this law would allow them to manufacture certain firearms to the given state standards, ATF could still hold them to the federal standards. The only way to have a chance for this to succeed in court is to have a case involving completely "clean" firearms, that is, firearms that are made to the state standard, by a manufacturer that does not hold a federal license.

Fair enough. I'm not familiar with the actual bills, but I was speaking in theory.

Depending on incorporation laws of the state, I could still see this coming to fruition though.

 

[fubar]

I think ya'll missed the f**king point. The idea is to challenge & strike down the interstate Commerce Clause.

They're not even going to build any guns. They are going to ask the ATF if they can do it and be exempt from FFL's , NICs etc. When Big Gov says no they go to court.

 

[Maj. Boom Boom]

I wasn't there...there were some pics of people in the parking lot. If I was there, I'd have said hi!

OK gotcha, your off the hook - as if you cared right

 

[Prepper]

Well if the fed is going to be like this (they are), Montana or any other state wanting to really make a stand is going to have to take things to another level. They'd have to respond something like "Yes, we are going to make guns in this state even though the fed claims that affects interstate commerce in some dubious way, and we don't care what the supreme court says about it because we know it really is constitutional what we're doing. So, we'll obey the constitution and ignore that court, and we'll do what we want without your permission. If you don't like it, too bad."

I may be dreaming of course. But, I don't have much hope for any kind of serious conservative comeback unless one (or more) entire states agree to tell the fed to take a hike. Individuals going it alone are just going to be increasingly outnumbered and picked off one by one when the time comes.

 

[rwl1955]

BATF/Montana

This could be interesting.
*****
ATF Tries to Revoke "Montana Made" State Sovereignty Laws
We all predicted this would happen.

In a move typical for that fear-mongering organization with an ever-swelling acronym, the BATFE has written gun dealers in the states of Montana and Tennessee to let them know the BATFE will be disregarding the state sovereignty gun laws of each state.

The "Montana Made" law, just like Tennessee's Firearms Freedom Act, is very simple.

Much of federal authority to regulate firearm sales and transfers stems from a liberal interpretation of every American tyrant's favorite subterfuge, the "interstate commerce" clause. In essence, this is what gives the BATFE its nasty teeth.

With this in mind, Montana correctly understood that any weapon made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is Montana's business and Montana's business only.

Montana thus sought to take charge of its firearms industry with the application of a simple truism:

Any gun made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is intrastate commerce, not "interstate commerce," and thus does not full under the purview of the federal government.

Potentially, the state would be able to say goodbye to NICS checks; Brady background checks; NFA taxes, bans and NFA databases -- and most importantly, federal "assault weapons" bans, which Montana and Tennessee rightly anticipated.

In effect, the "Montana Made" law would have permitted Montana gun companies to manufacture any kind of weapon banned by federal law -- including so-called "assault weapons" -- and sell them to fellow Montana residents.

Moreover, in this scenario, no one -- neither the manufacturer nor the dealer nor the buyer -- would have to kowtow to the BATFE by paying them a $200 tax and surrendering one's privacy to their notoriously inaccurate and oft-abused National Firearms Registry.

It was a new day for freedom -- and other states besides Tennessee were thinking of following suit: Alaska, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

Well, the BATFE -- never one to have its power downplayed (or acronym belittled)-- has written letters to both Montana and Tennessee gun dealers letting them know that they proceed at their own risk.

We can only guess what new horrors those words portend -- probably more dead housewives and children as disgruntled ATF thugs shoot-to-kill anyone suspected of perhaps owning a firearm not properly taxed and regulated by Washington, D.C., power brokers.

What else would be new.

A few of our members expressed interest in contacting the BATFE to vent some righteous anger -- the same thing we did when the Department of Defense said they were going to ban all once-fired military brass for resale.

Remember how the DoD reneged on that commitment after just a few days due to the widespread backlash from gun owners and law enforcement?

Well, this is a bit different. Writing the ATF and providing them with your information is akin to giving thieves your home address and the hours you won't be home.

We're going to take a different, less dangerous approach.

We've been talking to state officials from both Montana and Tennessee today to try to figure out the best way we can help these state laws succeed.

Please stay tuned to updates on this supremely important issue in our next email.

For now, click here to read Luke's commentary on his blog and leave a comment as this development unfolds.

But before I leave you, would you consider a donation to the National Association for Gun Rights as we continue to fight for the right to keep and bear arms? If you're feeling particularly generous today, please click here to contribute.

In Liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. The National Association for Gun Rights can always use your help as we are completely dependent on our members' generosity. Please click here to donate.

 

[Underwhere]

Making criminals one law at a time

 

[Larry Legend]

Well, the BATFE -- never one to have its power downplayed (or acronym belittled)-- has written letters to both Montana and Tennessee gun dealers letting them know that they proceed at their own risk.

I love this part. The idea of telling someone to "proceed at your own risk" IMO is a passive way of threatening them.

If everything plans out into a worst case scenario, we essentially have the BATFE going to war with some VERY well armed Montana and Tennessee residents, with the support of their own state behind them. Probably armed with weapons that even the BATFE might not have.


I can just picture it now. The ATF shows up at the door of the first resident. Knock, knock knock. "Hi, I'm here to either collect a tax on all of your firearms or to confiscate them. Please give us $XX,XXX in back taxes or forfeit your guns."

OOOOOO, the firefight that would ensue.



The anarchist in me WANTS to see this happen.

 

[DickWanner]

My parents have a 5-acre property with a huge 6 car+ garage in Laurel MT. We could fit a lot of "supplies" in there