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

[drgrant]

Would be even better if Montana's law enforcement stood behind the law. Imagine the look on the BATFE agents faces when they come up to a "montana gun factory and showroom" and a half dozen sheriffs deputies aren't going to allow them entry.

I doubt shots would ever be fired, but I can only imagine the political crap-storm on the back end. It would also be amusing
to see BATFE agents getting arrested and stuffed into cruisers.

-Mike

 

[Cabinetman]

Life is imitating art, here.

The book that's been making the round "Patriots" has, as one of the stories, a State that ignores the ATF and throws them out, simple as that. But, that's a novel.

http://www.rawles.to/patriots.htm

This is real life and is going to cause a confrontation that will be interesting to witness. The question is how far will Montana or Tennessee go to enforce their decision?

Rome

 

[Beansie_Time]

Would be even better if Montana's law enforcement stood behind the law. Imagine the look on the BATFE agents faces when they come up to a "montana gun factory and showroom" and a half dozen sheriffs deputies aren't going to allow them entry.

I doubt shots would ever be fired, but I can only imagine the political crap-storm on the back end. It would also be amusing
to see BATFE agents getting arrested and stuffed into cruisers.

-Mike

I think we can expect the Montana state police to do this. If the state legislature passes it as law isn't it their sworn duty to uphold and enforce it?

 

[MasterShinken]

I'm curious, other than pure greed and want for power, why the BAFTE believes they have the right to make such a threat.

 

[Cabinetman]

Quote " think we can expect the Montana state police to do this. If the state legislature passes it as law isn't it their sworn duty to uphold and enforce it? " Unquote.

I believe the Governor of Montana has use of his National Guard, correct?

Rome

 

[drgrant]

I think we can expect the Montana state police to do this. If the state legislature passes it as law isn't it their sworn duty to uphold and enforce it?

Maybe. I don't know how the LE structure there works. Montana may be one of those states where the Sheriff is considered to be above and beyond any other law enforcement in power within the borders of that state. I remember awhile back (maybe it was Wyoming?) that a Sheriff in one of those states was extremely pissed when BATFE conducted a raid without consulting the Sheriff's office first.

-Mike

 

[jhblaze1]

I'm curious, other than pure greed and want for power, why the BAFTE believes they have the right to make such a threat.

doesn't federal law (right or wrong) supercede state/local law? If this is a constitutional issue regarding the commerce clause, doesn't the federal law and enforcement thereof override state law if/until the SCOTUS hears/rules on an applicable case affecting interpretation of the commerce clause?

 

[DickWanner]

doesn't federal law (right or wrong) supercede state/local law? If this is a constitutional issue regarding the commerce clause, doesn't the federal law and enforcement thereof override state law if/until the SCOTUS hears/rules on an applicable case affecting interpretation of the commerce clause?

According to the Consitution, yes. But Montana has some special circumstance that aparently exempts them from this rule. Or at least that's what I got from the original thread posted back a few months ago.

 

[drgrant]

doesn't federal law (right or wrong) supercede state/local law? If this is a constitutional issue regarding the commerce clause, doesn't the federal law and enforcement thereof override state law if/until the SCOTUS hears/rules on an applicable case affecting interpretation of the commerce clause?

The problem is that even then, there have been numerous SCOTUS cases with the ICC.

Some of them, like US v Lopez, constrain the feds greatly. Others grant them lots of power. Sorting all that out legally, is "fun" to put it mildly.

It is a shame there hasn't been a broad based ruling by SCOTUS that
clearly delineates a 110% test for what things can or cannot be regulated by the feds via the commerce clause.


-Mike

 

[MasterShinken]

doesn't federal law (right or wrong) supercede state/local law? If this is a constitutional issue regarding the commerce clause, doesn't the federal law and enforcement thereof override state law if/until the SCOTUS hears/rules on an applicable case affecting interpretation of the commerce clause?

From what I read it seems BAFTE has it's neck in on interstate commerce. However if everything is done within the state, then they should be in the clear and out of BAFTE jurisdiction.

 

[Prepper]

Life is imitating art, here.

The book that's been making the round "Patriots" has, as one of the stories, a State that ignores the ATF and throws them out, simple as that. But, that's a novel.

I have that book but didn't read it, so didn't know about that. The book Molon Labe does have this situation though. In that case, Wyoming became that state to go fully follow the constitution and kick the feds out (followed later by a couple others if I remember correctly).

 

[Cabinetman]

Duh!! Thanks, Prepper, for correcting me. I confused the two as I read them pretty much back to back.

It IS Molon Labe that has the same situation and it was Wyoming that began the problems. For anyone looking for a good read, however, both books will be enjoyable.

Rome Mea Culpa!

 

[Auspicious Aspect]

Quote " think we can expect the Montana state police to do this. If the state legislature passes it as law isn't it their sworn duty to uphold and enforce it? " Unquote.

I believe the Governor of Montana has use of his National Guard, correct?

Rome

No, the National Guard is a federal military organization. A Governor only gets to use it if the central government doesn't want it right now.

Units actually controlled by Governors are know as the State Guard, State Defense Force, etc. These organizations exist in many states, but Montana does not seem to have one.

 

[Coyote33]

Anything new in Montana? I did find this related item:Ohio joins states declaring gun independence

 

[Coyote33]

Any updates on this? Did Montana ever follow through?

Another link:http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...Montana-quot-exemption-law.?highlight=montana

 

[sig2009]

Big update for those that don't know. Federal laws always trump state laws. When the fed tells the states they will cut off all federal moneys to those states the states will back down.

 

[RadiCS]

There's a show on the history channel that actually talked about this. BATF actually went after a local gun maker.

How the states got their shape

 

[EC1]

Big update for those that don't know. Federal laws always trump state laws. When the fed tells the states they will cut off all federal moneys to those states the states will back down.

If that's always true, how does MA get away with their 2A restrictions?

 

[Cabinetman]

Some states are forgoining Fed bucks like Florida or NJ with the "high speed rail". More and more states will wake up and realize the money they are offering is so full of strings that it's not worth getting.
Rome

 

[oniriggers]

Units actually controlled by Governors are know as the State Guard, State Defense Force, etc. These organizations exist in many states, but Montana does not seem to have one.

what about the montana militia...........i heard there pretty good

 

[Coyote33]

From what I read it seems BAFTE has it's neck in on interstate commerce. However if everything is done within the state, then they should be in the clear and out of BAFTE jurisdiction.

Some states are forgoining Fed bucks like Florida or NJ with the "high speed rail". More and more states will wake up and realize the money they are offering is so full of strings that it's not worth getting.
Rome

So, which is it? Is it the state's business only? Or is it also federal business, with monetary strings attached? This is not very clear at all, nor is it clear that Montana really wants to go much further with this.

 

[Cabinetman]

It's my understanding that States have the right to control what's made in their borders without Fed interference or jurisdiction. When their products go over their borders is when the Feds can exert their jurisdiction via the interstate commerce regs. In the book, "Molon Labe", there's a situation in the story line that exhibits an uncanny resemblence to what was actually happening in Montana. The book is based on facts and the law and clearly spells out the limits that the feds have over a state and what they make within their borders.

Rome

 

[mikem317]

Big update for those that don't know. Federal laws always trump state laws. When the fed tells the states they will cut off all federal moneys to those states the states will back down.

That's not true. What you are referring to, but are inaccurately interpreting is called the Supremacy Clause. This is a common misconception among Big Government Conservatives and Liberals. Google it.

 

[cekim]

That's not true. What you are referring to, but are inaccurately interpreting is called the Supremacy Clause. This is a common misconception among Big Government Conservatives and Liberals. Google it.

This is why they keep passing laws with words like "common sense" and "protection" in them because they know so many people will hear the title of the law, like the words and not read the shrink-wrap license that strips you of your freedoms and money.

 

[sig2009]

That's not true. What you are referring to, but are inaccurately interpreting is called the Supremacy Clause. This is a common misconception among Big Government Conservatives and Liberals. Google it.

Well then you just go and tell the state that wanted to pass a law to outlaw pat downs at their airport. What did the feds do. They told the state they would close down the airport if they passed the law. What happened to the states that didn't want to raise the drinking age. The feds said they would cut off all highway funds. What did the states do. They backed offand raised the drinking age. So No you are wrong.

 

[sig2009]

If that's always true, how does MA get away with their 2A restrictions?

Because the courts have said that states can pass reasonable restrictions and in the states eyes this is reasonable. This case is now headed to the supreme court for them to decide what is reasonable.

 

[sig2009]

It's my understanding that States have the right to control what's made in their borders without Fed interference or jurisdiction. When their products go over their borders is when the Feds can exert their jurisdiction via the interstate commerce regs. In the book, "Molon Labe", there's a situation in the story line that exhibits an uncanny resemblence to what was actually happening in Montana. The book is based on facts and the law and clearly spells out the limits that the feds have over a state and what they make within their borders.

Rome

So if a gun company wants to sell arms only to residents in their state the company will go out of business because they will not be able to sell enough to justify their existance.

 

[whatluck]

So if a gun company wants to sell arms only to residents in their state the company will go out of business because they will not be able to sell enough to justify their existance.

Are you sure about that? I don't think you understand - NFA are fed rules. These companies can sell SBSs, SBSs, and MGs. That means that a MT resident can buy a full auto 10" SBR'd stag for less than $1k. And you're saying that these companies don't have viable business plans?

 

[sig2009]

Are you sure about that? I don't think you understand - NFA are fed rules. These companies can sell SBSs, SBSs, and MGs. That means that a MT resident can buy a full auto 10" SBR'd stag for less than $1k. And you're saying that these companies don't have viable business plans?

Yup! Im sure Ford and Chevy would still be in business if they were only allowed to sell their product only in the state it was manufactured. I don't think so.

 

[calsdad]

Well then you just go and tell the state that wanted to pass a law to outlaw pat downs at their airport. What did the feds do. They told the state they would close down the airport if they passed the law. What happened to the states that didn't want to raise the drinking age. The feds said they would cut off all highway funds. What did the states do. They backed offand raised the drinking age. So No you are wrong.

You seem to be confused as to what the difference is between legality, precedence, and blackmail. You also don't seem to know the history of this country and how the Feds have used the interstate commerce clause to aggregate more power to themselves.

In the real world legality is what you make it. Once the states start telling the Feds to go eff themselves - all sorts of things will be "legal" again.