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

[Boris]

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.

since demilled kits are not firearms, there is that pesky issue of what firearm is. Remember the "shoe string is a gun" ATF classification. Well, there are plenty more cases in the "grey" when we are talking about literal bits of metal, some of them were never firearms, but ATF says that they are. The whole "raw material" makes no sense. Coal was some micro-organisms that may have traveled from other "states". How long does an item have to be in-state to be considered a "raw material"? To some extent content of scrap heaps and junk yards are "raw materials" for something. When agencies like ATF and lawyers come to life, simple things in life suddenly become complicated.

 

[lupis42]

since demilled kits are not firearms, there is that pesky issue of what firearm is. Remember the "shoe string is a gun" ATF classification. Well, there are plenty more cases in the "grey" when we are talking about literal bits of metal, some of them were never firearms, but ATF says that they are. The whole "raw material" makes no sense. Coal was some micro-organisms that may have traveled from other "states". How long does an item have to be in-state to be considered a "raw material"? To some extent content of scrap heaps and junk yards are "raw materials" for something. When agencies like ATF and lawyers come to life, simple things in life suddenly become complicated.

I agree, but that's why I'm saying that were going from muddy water to old-motor oil here - if you bring that question up in a court, you're going to get an answer that ignores the commerce clause and instead focuses on the limits of the definition of "raw material" or "component" - which is why MO is trying to keep it to a simple, narrow question of the limits of the Commerce Clause.

 

[Boris]

I agree, but that's why I'm saying that were going from muddy water to old-motor oil here - if you bring that question up in a court, you're going to get an answer that ignores the commerce clause and instead focuses on the limits of the definition of "raw material" or "component" - which is why MO is trying to keep it to a simple, narrow question of the limits of the Commerce Clause.

100% agree, let's make baby steps that are clear and less open to debate and creation of even more idiotic laws and regulations. The end result is what humanity used for thousands of year, everyone but slaves may own means to defend themselves, so as long as we abolish ATF/NFA at the end, I'm on board!

 

[lupis42]

100% agree, let's make baby steps that are clear and less open to debate and creation of even more idiotic laws and regulations. The end result is what humanity used for thousands of year, everyone but slaves may own means to defend themselves, so as long as we abolish ATF/NFA at the end, I'm on board!

Personally, I can't wait for the "Converting your 9mm PPSh to full auto" thread!

 

[Coyote33]

... 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. ...

I thought what came out of the 1930's "Miller" case was that a gun had to serve a military purpose to be covered by the 2nd Amendment, or something like that.

Personally, I can't wait for the "Does "Cheaper Than Dirt" carry the convert your 9mm PPSh to full auto" kit thread!

FIFY

 

[cekim]

I thought what came out of the 1930's "Miller" case was that a gun had to serve a military purpose to be covered by the 2nd Amendment, or something like that.

The argument of the court was that the purpose of 2A was to provide for the ability to call up citizen militia who would provide their own arms.

As such, the court blathered that weapons had to have some military purpose to be covered by this.

1. There was a lot of WTF in Miller including that short barreled shot guns were indeed in use for military purposes at the time, but no one argued that to the ignorant justices.

2. This would seem to entirely invalidate the AWB as constitutional as it was precisely the characteristics of a "military rifle" that we're targeted...

Yet another decision that shows that the court cannot read "shall not be infringed," but more troubling is that even if you follow their logic is still does not permit NFA, yet NFA was specifically upheld...

Virtually every NFA registered item has been used for, or was primarily designed for use in warfare.

 

[Boris]

with definition of warfare getting expanded, pretty soon most cellphones and palm computers may be classified as "cyber warfare assault weapons" or we can just cut off all the lazy bastards, their salaries, pensions from the budget.

Even in the friggin middle ages, no one could stop anyone from poisoning town water well or blowing up a barrel with gunpowder, so the whole argument on modern guns somehow being the worst danger to the public is BS.

 

[willbdavis]

so the whole argument on modern guns somehow being the worst danger to the public is BS.

Amen to that. The Oklahoma City Bombing didn't make use of any firearms.

It's a shame the founding fathers weren't more specific when they wrote the Second Amendment. They should have defined, somewhere, what was meant by "the right to keep and bear arms." Maybe folks back then could easily understand and agree about what this meant. But the liberal bastards these days are being pretty damn obtuse about it.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Amen to that. The Oklahoma City Bombing didn't make use of any firearms.

It's a shame the founding fathers weren't more specific when they wrote the Second Amendment. They should have defined, somewhere, what was meant by "the right to keep and bear arms." Maybe folks back then could easily understand and agree about what this meant. But the liberal bastards these days are being pretty damn obtuse about it.

idk, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me.

 

[Boris]

idk, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me.

ditto, English is my third language and it seems to me clear as day as well as the reasons why. There is a motive to grow the government indefinitely and this beast ripped its leash a while back, now there is no way to coral it back under control, we are on the defensive comrades, "public servants" want to "serve" the crap out of public.

 

[cekim]

Amen to that. The Oklahoma City Bombing didn't make use of any firearms.

It's a shame the founding fathers weren't more specific when they wrote the Second Amendment. They should have defined, somewhere, what was meant by "the right to keep and bear arms." Maybe folks back then could easily understand and agree about what this meant. But the liberal bastards these days are being pretty damn obtuse about it.

If you:
A. Read/speak beyond a 5th grade level...
B. Understand the Constitution as a document written by a people who had just overthrown their own government rather than some foreign king...

Then their flowery prose needs no further explanation and you can see why they did not think so either.

 

[joeendris]

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.

Total control.....isn't that defined as tyranny?