Guns, Bows, Shooting Sports, and Hunting Montana Firearms Freedom Act

[SKuyper]

Last year, Montana passed legislation that among other things aims to enforce the 9th and 10th ammendments to the Constitution, which basically say, those rights not granted to the Federal Government by the States, remains the rights of the States and if not the State, then to the people thereof. This new law challenges the Fed's loophole called the Interstate Commerce act, which under Clinton expanded the ATF's powers, specifically requiring gun purchasers to go through a Federal Background Check which would determine whether or not the gun buyer would be permitted to buy a gun of any kind... completely circumventing the 2nd Ammendment which states, the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed upon. A crime that the Federal Government is perpetrating it'self... not upholding the Constitution !



Anyhow, the Montana law states that any firearm manufactured in the State of Montana, Sold to a Montana Citizen and remains within the borders of Montana and not sold outside it's borders... the purchaser of which is exempt from the Federal ATF Background Check. The underlying legality of this... not withstanding arguments about the 2nd, 9th and 10th ammendments is this. The above mentioned firearm is NOT subject to Federal control under the touted Interstate Commerce Act... it is INTRASTATE COMMERCE ! Therefore cannot be controlled by the Federal Government under existing law!!!



This law went into effect October 1st 2009... on October 2nd , the Federal ATF sent notice to the State of Montana that, ignoring Federal Law would not be tolerated. Montana's response was Go Pi_ _ Up a Rope, SEE YA IN COURT!... The State of Montana, backed by Hunters and Shooters and in general citizens statewide, is going to make this a Case of States Rights and rights granted or not granted to the Federal Government by the States!!! The State of Montana publicly requested that firearms manufacturers and dealers in the state to hold up implementing the new Montana law until such a time as Montana kicked the Feds butt in court on constitutional grounds. GO MONTANA !!!



The ground foundation for this in Montana was Montana's State Constitution which flat stated that ALL Montana's citizens would now and forever have the right to keep and bear arms without infringement of any kind by the Federal Government. The people of Montana in the majority, are TICKED at the liberal left, socialist leanings of our Federal Government and are determined not to fall prey to it... ... Just thought someone might be interested.....

 

[Moe]

Go Montana. More states need to get the cajones to do the same thing!!

 

[HCannon]

Yes, go Montana!!! When you win this one, other states should follow (I hope).

 

[JFought]

yea hopefully tx as well!!

 

[The patriot]

Montana is one of my #1 picks to get to eventually.

 

[Adventure Bob]

I applaud Montanas effort to keep the right gauranteed in the constituition for the purpose as Thomas Jeffersons said, to keep the ability to oppose oppresive governments. The only problem I foresee is the same problem other states have been shackled with: The interstate commerce law will be applied to the raw materials to make the weapons and will still be coverd under FFA. If the ATF/FFA doesnt get their way, the Fed will push that highway monies be withheld from the state until they comply. Its the same tactic they used to get the last drinking age bumped to 21. Louisiana allowed 18 yr olds to drink and teh fed said "fine you can do that but we wont support road development money into a state that puts 18 yr olds at risk. " Due to the magnitutde of those funds, louisiana folded. Montana will get the same pressure shortly. Montana has already undergone trial and changed their tune to this type of pressure already with regard to speed limit regulation, thus the death of the Monatanaban. It cost a lot of money to stand on your principles and quite frankly a state cant afford not to get highway money.

 

[DWordinger]

Introduced in the Ohio House on October 16, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-315) seeks “To enact section 2923. 26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words “Made in Ohio” be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio. ”



The bill was authored by State Representatives Morgan and Martin, and currently has 15 other co-sponsors. (h/t BuckeyeFirearms.org and OhioFreedom.com)



While the HB315’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:



The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.



Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.



Firearms Freedom Acts have already passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and have been introduced in a number of other states around the country. There’s been no lack of controversy surrounding them, either. The Tenth Amendment Center recently reported on the ATF’s position that such laws don’t matter:



The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.



Constitutional historian Kevin R. C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:



“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter. ”



“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them. ”



Advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter if the federal government disagrees, or even threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma. Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, and founder of Firearms Freedom Act took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:



“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills. And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs. “



The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.



All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.



A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws - in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.



While many advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.



Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.



Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.



Alaska

HB 186 Passed House 32-7 Legislature adjourned



Florida

Firearms Freedom Act HB-21



Michigan

HB-5232 Michigan Firearms Freedom Act Introduced 8/12/09



Minnesota

Firearms Freedom Act H. F. 2376



Montana

Firearms Freedom Act HB 246 Passed. Effective on October 1, 2009.



Ohio

HB-315Firearms Freedom Act introduced 10-20-09



Pennsylvania

Firearms Freedom Act HB 1988 Introduced by Sam Rohrer – 9/18/09



South Carolina

Firearms Freedom Act S. 794 Introduced on May 6, 2009



Tennessee

Firearms Freedom Act HB 1796 and SB 1610 Passed both houses, became law without signature of Governor.



Texas

Firearms Freedom Act HB 1863

 

[HCannon]

No end to fighting for freedom. Thanks to everyone that is in a position to do something about it. Freedom is lost a little bit at a time so every little bit counts. This is what it is all about in my mind. None of this will be easy with our Federal Government controling so much of our funds. They do have ways to put the pressure on you. This only my thoughts, could be wrong.

 

[RHestand]

Montana, keep up the good fight.

 

[champspa]

they will defeat and subjugate your state like they did the other rebellious states

 

[mymtnhauler]

I applaud Montanas effort to keep the right gauranteed in the constituition for the purpose as Thomas Jeffersons said, to keep the ability to oppose oppresive governments. The only problem I foresee is the same problem other states have been shackled with: The interstate commerce law will be applied to the raw materials to make the weapons and will still be coverd under FFA. If the ATF/FFA doesnt get their way, the Fed will push that highway monies be withheld from the state until they comply. Its the same tactic they used to get the last drinking age bumped to 21. Louisiana allowed 18 yr olds to drink and teh fed said "fine you can do that but we wont support road development money into a state that puts 18 yr olds at risk. " Due to the magnitutde of those funds, louisiana folded. Montana will get the same pressure shortly. Montana has already undergone trial and changed their tune to this type of pressure already with regard to speed limit regulation, thus the death of the Monatanaban. It cost a lot of money to stand on your principles and quite frankly a state cant afford not to get highway money.

Montana was not forced by the fed to change our speed limit. A laws suit filed by an ( it is rather hard choose a nice name for this guy! ) to challenge safe and prudent. He was caught doing 125 MILES PER HOURS! His argument was, what is safe and prudent. He argued that he was safe. The week need state legislature said that this would set presidents for more law suites.

 

[The patriot]

they will defeat and subjugate your state like they did the other rebellious states

Maybe so, but time will tell.