Made in Montana

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin T, May 1, 2009.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,914
    Location:
    New Mexico
    [​IMG]

    Montana has passed an interesting law, HB246, firing a shot across the bow of the government in Washington, challenging their control over guns manufactured, sold, and used inside the state of Montana. In 2005, a similar situation occured in California when a marijuana user named Angel McClary Raich tested the commerce clause of the Constitution. The courts held that the federal government could control strictly domestic marijuana because it was indistinguishable from the stuff grown anywhere else. To address this precedent, Montana intends to stamp each gun "Made in Montana" to distinguish their weapons. Practically speaking, this doesn't change much. Only a few black powder and high end hunting rifles are actually produced in Montana right now. As a test of states' rights however, this could be huge. The expectation is that someone in Montana will begin to manufacture a .22 caliber rifle and inform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that they are not applying for a license to manufacture.

    For too many years, states have seen their constitutional authority eroded under the federal government's regulatory practices. The excuse in most cases has been the commerce clause which gives the federal government authority over products moving from state to state. Since most everything we drive, eat, wear, and work with was manufactured somewhere else, Washington now controls almost everything a state might want to do on its own. There is a growing movement by states to reassert their own sovereignty based on the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government with all other powers retained by the states. These are driven mostly by states upset at unfunded mandates from Washington such as special needs education and No Child Left Behind which call for performance, but provide no funding to pay for it. So far, none of the laws intended to specifically address state sovereignty have passed into law. The Montana case is interesting because it is asking the question "Is there anything left that the states can control totally within their borders?" It could be that the unapproved guns would be confiscated if found anywhere outside of Montana. It could be that BATF won't want to get stuck in that tar baby and simply look the other way. They might say, "Sorry, the iron billets you brought in from Minnesota and the wood from Oregon constitute interstate commerce." and claim control. If it goes to court it will compel the discussion of states' rights and the limits of the commerce clause, and I see that as a very good thing.
    I believe that gun owners are more aware of issues of freedom and the Constitution than most folks. I think they understand the deep justification for an armed citizenry in a free society. They understand the stakes are high and important. America is unique in the world, and most of us want to preserve the clockwork structure, with checks and balances that our founding fathers set forth in the Constitution.. I am proud of Montana for passing this law, and I look forward to someone actually bearding the lion by manufacturing "Made in Montana" firearms.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2944-Denv...s-rights?cid=exrss-Denver-Gun-Rights-Examiner
     
  2. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    What about the materials from which the weapons are made. Unless the guns are made from materials that come from Montana, I can see the Feds still trying to invoke the Interstate Commerce Act becuase the materials and equipment used in making the firearms will have crossed state lines. It's a great gesture, but the Feds will find some way to squash it.
     

  3. Urban_Black_Redneck

    Urban_Black_Redneck New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    We all have to start somewhere. It is nice to see fellow Americans in their state government taking affirmative action in reducing dictatorial rule of the Fed.
     
  4. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    The devil is in the details. I forsee the feds using the "raw materials" or "machinery" or even the "fuel" argument. If those manufacturers ae using electricity from the interstate grid, there is your "interstate" argument, according to the feds.

    What about the air the workers breathe? Montana hasn't yet erected the bubble to keep air from passing over state lines.

    Pops
     
  5. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,914
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Use the libs rules against them, or make them look at all their riduclous laws.

    I'm really sick of hearing about the interstate clause, is it time to repeal that yet or what?
     
  6. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, but the feds have used and abused that little stipulation in all kinds of ways to infringe on our rights. SCOTUS needs to slap down some of these BS restrictions based on "interstate commerce." But we know SCOTUS won't do anything like that.
     
  7. Haligan

    Haligan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,713
    Location:
    FEMA Region II
    I very much like this tactic. For far too many years the Fed Government has passed law after law, edict after edict, and watched the reaction of the states.
    This is VERY important. To pass a law by a state and watch the Federals react.

    In many ways this can help us.
    1/ we get to see the Federals react.
    2/ we get to see the liberal politians and talking heads go on record.
    3/ we get to fire up our own side based on 1 and 2.

    We all know where this entire mess is heading. (entire mess = eroding of our constitution, and American way of life)

    The Federals are going to have to be very carefull, in the way they handle this. Other states are watching.(i.e. Texas, S.C., Arizona)
     
  8. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all for the states waving the 10th Amendment in Barry's face and telling him to cram it sideways where the sun don't shine. But I don't see Supreme Leader and Master Barry Hussein (or his puppetmasters) letting any state get away with something like this. We already know that Barry and his closet-commie pals have no regard for the Constitution to start with, so they most definately will not let a state get away with asserting their 10th Amendment sovereignty like this.
     
  9. Haligan

    Haligan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,713
    Location:
    FEMA Region II
    Exactly !!!, This may force their hand. If they try to strong arm 1 state, the anger against the federals will grow by leaps and bounds.
    If you want to make an omlet your gonna have to break some eggs.
    It seams clear the federals are going to have to fire the first shot.(figurativly speaking;))
     
  10. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    I wonder if there are any States sitting on legislation not filed, just to see what the reaction of the fedarales will be. It won't surprise me to see the feds try to move in with force, using non-military agents. It also won't surprise if the response in other States is to file and pass similar laws.

    Wanna take on 1 State with BATFE, FBI and US Marshalls? OK. Now, do you want to take on 15 States with the same police force? hmmmmmmmmmmm Willing troops are getting a little thin. Maybe we should bring in real military to enforce the federal laws on the States.

    Now, we are talking about a bucket of worms, rather than just a can.

    Pops