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

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.
Texas chickened out... I am guessing there must have been more threats than were published because the government would lose that bluff fast. If they shut down national air travel over that, they'd be looking for jobs within 48 hours...
 
Texas chickened out... I am guessing there must have been more threats than were published because the government would lose that bluff fast. If they shut down national air travel over that, they'd be looking for jobs within 48 hours...

In the end it all revolves around money. In case nobody has noticed - the Federal Govt. is bankrupt. They have maxed out what they can tax us as a percentage of GDP, and they just keep spending more. The country that they have been borrowing money from is not in good shape either (China) - and other countries all over the world are having serious problems (Greece, Ireland, etc). We are already bailing out the European banks. The Federal Reserve has shot it's wad on QE2 - and accomplished nothing.

What I'm trying to say is: It's coming up towards the end of the road for the Federal govt. vis a vis how much they can use finances to blackmail the states to going along. Think of all these bills as sticking your foot in the water. The Feds bit back when the states try out these bills - and by telling the states to STFU and go along - all they gain themselves is a little more time.

What they also gain themselves is a bunch of people who remember that they got shut down by the Feds - people who will think: " will get you the next time bitch - you're time is coming".

This country was founded on states rights - not coercion and blackmail by an overreaching Federal government. Sooner or later people are going to have to pick what side of that ideological chasm they want to sit on. We've had a good century and a half of big government coercion - and it's all coming to an end IMHO.
 
This country was founded on states rights - not coercion and blackmail by an overreaching Federal government. Sooner or later people are going to have to pick what side of that ideological chasm they want to sit on. We've had a good century and a half of big government coercion - and it's all coming to an end IMHO.
I agree with most of what you said, but this last part overlooks the reality that even some of the founders wanted the states indebted to the Federal government as a means of limiting their power. The central bankers started on day one trying to take over...

Travel being as difficult as it was, they reckoned back then that the Feds would have very little means of controlling the states without debt. It blows and I'm glad they were overruled by other founders who's opinions and actions I value much more, but it's import not to romanticize things too much as it just reenforces the idea that government can ever be good.

It cannot. It can only be small and a lesser evil to anarchy. That's as good as it gets and all anyone should ever expect/ask of it.
 
I agree with most of what you said, but this last part overlooks the reality that even some of the founders wanted the states indebted to the Federal government as a means of limiting their power. The central bankers started on day one trying to take over...

Travel being as difficult as it was, they reckoned back then that the Feds would have very little means of controlling the states without debt. It blows and I'm glad they were overruled by other founders who's opinions and actions I value much more, but it's import not to romanticize things too much as it just reenforces the idea that government can ever be good.

It cannot. It can only be small and a lesser evil to anarchy. That's as good as it gets and all anyone should ever expect/ask of it.


Agreed - some of the FOUNDERS wanted additional Federal government power. Hamilton is the one that always comes to mind when I think of this.

The FOUNDERS however - are different from "the states" - and I know of nothing that happened from "the states" where any of them "wanted" the Federal government to encroach on their sovereignty.
 
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.

No I'm not. The federal remedy was unconstitutional, in both of your examples. Just because that's what happened, doesn't condone it's constitutionality.
 
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.

You're one dense fellow. The Supreme Court doesn't decide what's reasonable. What government school district do you hail from? Yikes.
 
You're one dense fellow. The Supreme Court doesn't decide what's reasonable. What government school district do you hail from? Yikes.

Wow. You really should pay more attention to what is going on in the world. I guess you never heard of the Heller or MacDonald cases.

There is also a case in NJ right now Muller V. Maenza. The case is about "what is justifiable need to get a carry permit". The current thinking is that this case will wind up before the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts. So yes the Supreme Court does and will make these decisions and yes you are wrong!
 
Last edited:
No I'm not. The federal remedy was unconstitutional, in both of your examples. Just because that's what happened, doesn't condone it's constitutionality.

While I agree with you. The government does what it wants regardless of whether it is constitutional or not. You live in a state where you have to purchase health ins or be fined. That is unconstutional to force me to buy a product. Is anyone in MA. doing anything about that? NO!!!!!!!!!
 
How do you know?

Because it's not being talked about. Have you seen any news stories regarding that. I havn't! With the polls having your buddy Romney out in front don't you think this would be raised with him in the spotlight so much. The states are fighting the MoBama plan but not the Romney plan.
 
Because it's not being talked about. Have you seen any news stories regarding that. I havn't! With the polls having your buddy Romney out in front don't you think this would be raised with him in the spotlight so much. The states are fighting the MoBama plan but not the Romney plan.

Dude, who flicked your troll switch on?

Did you see the MA is losing a rep seat because of the census? Seems to me people are doing exactly what you are supposed to do when your state does something you don't approve of. Myself and many like me are voting with our feet and getting out of MA.
 
It would be a beautiful thing if states like Fl, Tx, Wy essentially stopped taking federal money and then turned around and starting voting against all pork spending. More than any other state, TX has the ability to really lead the charge for state sovereignty.

It would be wonderful to get a few Davey Crocketts back in government.
 
While I agree with you. The government does what it wants regardless of whether it is constitutional or not. You live in a state where you have to purchase health ins or be fined. That is unconstutional to force me to buy a product. Is anyone in MA. doing anything about that? NO!!!!!!!!!

Really dude? It's unconstitutional for a state to force you to buy a product? Why don't you go back to school or read a book on the Constitution and how it applies to the states, then come back with your big boy pants on and participate in the discussion.
 
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.

It probably costs a little less to start and run a firearms company than it does an automaker.

It wouldn't be difficult at all to keep a company going with only in-state sales if that was the plan from the start.

My local sandwich shop manages to stay in business without relying on customers from all 50 states.
 
Really dude? It's unconstitutional for a state to force you to buy a product? Why don't you go back to school or read a book on the Constitution and how it applies to the states, then come back with your big boy pants on and participate in the discussion.

I don't want to pay for the Government schools or welfare. I don't want to pay for the congress critters' pay raises or the extra income taxes I voted for and passed.
Now that I know it's unconstitutional, where can I get a refund?
 
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.

Update for those that don't understand the constitution-

News Flash- The commerce clause is supposed to have limits.

-Mike
 
Update for those that don't understand the constitution-

News Flash- The commerce clause is supposed to have limits.

-Mike

Update for the people who don't already know. News Flash. The government does what it wants when it wants. If you don't already know this you have all been living in caves. It doesn't care about the constitution and it tells states what to do and when to do it Commerce Clause or not!!!!! Why do you think Ron Paul will never get the party nomination for President. Because if he did and got elected president he would put an end to all the unconstutional crap the government does.
 
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?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think this Montana law excludes NFA, or at least it excludes machine guns. Even in Montana the political overtones of that were too much. There might have also been economic issues at play... for example, NFA dealers in the state who have links into the pols in the state.

-Mike
 
I was able to find this: Montana DID, in fact, flip off the Feds and sign their new gun bill into law in their state. I haven't had a chance to search to see if the Feds challenged them in court. Maybe someone from Montana will weigh in.

Rome


http://www.panamalaw.org/montana_governor_signs_new_gun_law.html

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. .....rest of text in link above.

Edit:

I DID find this which will bring things to the current time:

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/category/news/
 
Last edited:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think this Montana law excludes NFA, or at least it excludes machine guns. Even in Montana the political overtones of that were too much. There might have also been economic issues at play... for example, NFA dealers in the state who have links into the pols in the state.

-Mike
Sort of...

wikipedia said:
It applies to all firearms other than fully automatic weapons, firearms that cannot be carried and used by one person, and firearms with a bore diameter greater than 1½ inch which use smokeless powder. It also applies to ammunition (except exploding projectiles), and accessories such as suppressors.[2]

So they exclude machine guns, but include suppressors which are most definitely NFA items.

The trouble with many already involved with NFA is that they hold licenses which bind them to the terms of those licenses. So, they are defacto consenting to federal law or in violation of the terms of the license and subject to revocation and then charges.

I had hoped montana would nut up and bring the whole issue to SCOTUS with machine guns and crew served weapons as precisely the sort of "arms" covered by 2A as a means of providing a credible check to tyranny via a citizen army. I understand why they did not though from a strategic standpoint, that is a harder argument to get through to the sheeple.

At the time of the founders and even today, cannon are perfectly accepted in private ownership.

It isn't the metal, it is the man...
 
Last edited:
As far as I can tell the main issue for Montana is the scope of the commerce clause. They're using firearms as an example to make the point. The point is best made when the argument is lean and direct. Adding machine guns into the mix just muddies the issue.

We want this. There is no end to the wonderful things that can come from successfully challenging the current expansive interpretation of the commerce clause. NFA is one of the things that could be brought down following a successful SCOTUS ruling.
 
As far as I can tell the main issue for Montana is the scope of the commerce clause. They're using firearms as an example to make the point. The point is best made when the argument is lean and direct. Adding machine guns into the mix just muddies the issue.

We want this. There is no end to the wonderful things that can come from successfully challenging the current expansive interpretation of the commerce clause. NFA is one of the things that could be brought down following a successful SCOTUS ruling.
The fact that it muddies the issue, and I agree it does is an indication of how far down this slippery slope of "reasonable restrictions" we have fallen.

It should not muddy the issue as it is a hunk of metal that goes bang like so many others, but I do very much understand the depth of the hole we have dug and that we might have to dig sideways for a while to finally start climbing out...
 
how does it affect building from the kits or demilled weapons? Technically, some of them came directly from other countries, so no interstate commerce. This is as far as raw materials go. A lot of 80% receiver do come from a lot of "those" states.
 
CEKIM, you already know where I stand on this issue. We have a right to keep and bear arms. This isn't limited to any particular type of arm, are even firearms. I'm not in favor of any so-called reasonable restrictions on anything.

However, I think the the issue of machine guns muddies the issue because now the topic expands to include the National Firearms Act. We should stick to getting the commerce clause back down to the intended size and scope and then go after all the other shite, such as NFA, Gun Control Act of 1968, Hughes Amendment to FOPA, etc.
 
how does it affect building from the kits or demilled weapons? Technically, some of them came directly from other countries, so no interstate commerce. This is as far as raw materials go. A lot of 80% receiver do come from a lot of "those" states.

The constitution is, unfortunately, neither vague nor on our side when it comes to imports. You could make the case that once it's in that state, it's out of the Feds hands, but if MGs would muddy the waters, a once-imported then remanufactured firearms are going to turn those waters positively black.
 
Back
Top Bottom